Q22

 
MJ
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 7
Joined: March 02nd, 2019
 
 
 

Q22

by MJ Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:10 pm

Can someone elaborate on the difference of choice (A) and (B), I sensed that (B) is better, but why is (A) wrong?
Thanks
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q22

by ohthatpatrick Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:00 pm

Main Point = Topic + Purpose

The topic is the relationship between earthquakes / subduction zones / types of plate collision.
The purpose is to present the NEW scientific understanding of this issue, to ANSWER a question.

The Main point / purpose is usually hanging around the first big pivot in the 1st paragraph:
BUT, YET, HOWEVER, RECENTLY

We can surmise this purpose from key rhetorical moments in the 1st paragraph:
"According to the generally accepted theory of plate tectonics ...."
"Contrary to expectations, however ..."
"There remained a crucial question for which we had no answer, until recently ..."

"One group now proposes that .."

So if the purpose is answering the question "how is it that you can have lots of subduction, but not a lot of quakes?", then the main point is the answer:

"if the plates collide when one is chasing the other, the subduction angle is steep, so there's not much friction, so there's not many earthquakes".

(A) The amount of subduction is NOT strongly correlated with number of quakes. The whole riddle we're solving is based on this mismatch "often, there's lots of subduction where there are lots of quakes. But there are these other curious regions with lots of subduction and not many quakes."

(B) Yes, this speaks to how we answered the question posed at the end of the first paragraph.



(C) Wrong, the plates DO collide, they just do so in a way that causes a steep, low-friction subduction.

(D) "ABANDONS" is too strong. We still think the process of subduction is what results in earthquakes, but we're more specifically refining that to "shallow angle subduction is what results in earthquakes".

(E) The theory isn't threatened. We were just trying to figure out one weird anomaly within the theory, and we did.
 
JenniferK632
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 43
Joined: January 18th, 2020
 
 
 

Re: Q22

by JenniferK632 Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:17 am

Hi! Would you be able to explain why the theory isn't threatened? If, like the last paragraph says, that the original theory ignored the potential of low subduction earthquakes, wouldn't that threaten the correctness of the original theory?

ohthatpatrick Wrote:Main Point = Topic + Purpose

The topic is the relationship between earthquakes / subduction zones / types of plate collision.
The purpose is to present the NEW scientific understanding of this issue, to ANSWER a question.

The Main point / purpose is usually hanging around the first big pivot in the 1st paragraph:
BUT, YET, HOWEVER, RECENTLY

We can surmise this purpose from key rhetorical moments in the 1st paragraph:
"According to the generally accepted theory of plate tectonics ...."
"Contrary to expectations, however ..."
"There remained a crucial question for which we had no answer, until recently ..."

"One group now proposes that .."

So if the purpose is answering the question "how is it that you can have lots of subduction, but not a lot of quakes?", then the main point is the answer:

"if the plates collide when one is chasing the other, the subduction angle is steep, so there's not much friction, so there's not many earthquakes".

(A) The amount of subduction is NOT strongly correlated with number of quakes. The whole riddle we're solving is based on this mismatch "often, there's lots of subduction where there are lots of quakes. But there are these other curious regions with lots of subduction and not many quakes."

(B) Yes, this speaks to how we answered the question posed at the end of the first paragraph.



(C) Wrong, the plates DO collide, they just do so in a way that causes a steep, low-friction subduction.

(D) "ABANDONS" is too strong. We still think the process of subduction is what results in earthquakes, but we're more specifically refining that to "shallow angle subduction is what results in earthquakes".

(E) The theory isn't threatened. We were just trying to figure out one weird anomaly within the theory, and we did.
 
CharlesT757
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 19
Joined: May 15th, 2019
 
 
 

Re: Q22

by CharlesT757 Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:12 pm

JenniferK632 Wrote:Hi! Would you be able to explain why the theory isn't threatened? If, like the last paragraph says, that the original theory ignored the potential of low subduction earthquakes, wouldn't that threaten the correctness of the original theory?


I think the last paragraph is just sort of saying "we need to watch the implications of this newly proposed theory." So that doesn't throw out or "threaten" the theory of plate tectonics, what answer choice (E) says.
 
Laura Damone
Thanks Received: 94
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 468
Joined: February 17th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q22

by Laura Damone Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:38 pm

I would point back to Patrick's explanation here! There was a question for which the plate tectonic theory had no answer (lines 16-19 in the paper test pdf). And the passage provides that answer. This is a supplement to the original theory, not a threat to it :)
Laura Damone
LSAT Content & Curriculum Lead | Manhattan Prep