Q15

[alovitt]

Would someone please walk me through their thought process on this question? I am terrible with figuring out analogous situations in RC, which seems to differ from parallel reasoning in LR in the sense that content is very relevant here. None of these choices seemed attractive to me, but I chose B because it had "interpret" which mirrors the job of the editor. Still, I didn't like the "instructions of an employer" part because an employer is hardly a slave. On the other hand, I eliminated E immediately when I saw "reenactment." How is a reenactment an analogue of an interpretation? Also, any tips for how to approach this type of question in general?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post! The first thing you need to know about these "analogous situation" RC questions is that you're NEVER going to love the right answer. These are all about picking the least wrong answer.

Although it's hard to predict how exactly the correct answer will match up with the situation in the passage, it's important to try to identify the key characteristics of the section in question. In this case, we're told that the editors must take the facts of the slave's life and decide "what to make of these facts, how they should be emphasized, in what order they ought to be presented, and what was extraneous or germane." In other words, it's the editor's job to arrange and present the facts. So we're looking for someone who has to do something similar.

(A) is out because there are no facts, no arranging, just a "method of painting."

(B) is tempting, let's keep it.

(C) is incorrect because the editor doesn't have to provide evidence, or support opinions; he has to work with the facts he's given.

(D) is out because, again, it's not about taking some elements and arranging them. The architect here gets to design the building.

(E) Hmm, E looks pretty good. Let's go back to (B).

Oh, ok. (B) is a goner because the editor's job is not to interpret anything, it's to take facts and assemble them into a narrative. There is nothing interpretive about this.

(E) is better because the historian, in directing the reenactment of the historical event, doesn't have to come up with any new information or interpretations; rather, he has to decide how to present the historical facts, just like the editor in the passage. So don't be too quick to get rid of an answer because of one word.

Does that help?

[WaltGrace1983]

I also thought that (A) was odd due to the "unique method" and the "emotional impact" being discussed. To me, (A) seemed pretty unsupported for these reasons.

I eliminated (B) because "instructions of an employer" is hardly what is going on. The editor isn't merely told what to write and then has to write it. The editor takes facts and then does a write-up on it! The "instructions of an employer" seem much more direct. What the editor does is not nearly as direct. The editor can omit things, add things to spice up the story, etc. This cannot be done with "instructions from an employer." If it can, I would love to know where you work so I can work there too!

(E) stood out as the winner because the editor, like a director, is given a set of facts or a story in which he/she presents the information in whatever way that he/she wants to! Seems fairly analogous to me.