Q22

[khaleesiwantstodolaw]

I picked B here because in line 24 the passage states, "uncertainties abound" which I thought was captured by B's use of the word "ambiguous". Also, in line 35-39 the passage states that the valuations did not take into account a business's goodwill which would today be a large fraction of market value. And, I thought this corresponded pretty well with answer choice B's use of the term "outdated".

That was my thought process in choosing B. Why is D better than B?

[tommywallach]

Hey Khaleesi,

So your argument is really good here. Let's start with the obvious part: "ambiguous" and "difficult to interpret" have essentially the same meaning, so (B) is definitely half-right.

The problem is "outdated". Let's look at the sentence you cite:

"...probate valuations probably took no notice of a business's goodwill which...would today be a large fraction of market value."

Now, "outdated" means "obsolete." If probate records were "obsolete," we wouldn't be looking at them at all. But we know that these records are good, because the author clearly likes/respects Rubinstein, and he investigated the probate records.

Something isn't outdated just because some part of it is outdated. Probate records are definitely not outdated...one aspect of how they recorded information might be outdated. Consider the last sentence of the paragraph: "Whether factors like these introduced systematic biases into the probate valuations of individuals...would be worth investigating." In other words, the author is recommending further study of probate records, proving that they definitely aren't outdated (obsolete).

Hope that helps!

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

^ I thought the same thing for (B). Thanks Tommy!

(A) "Self-contradictory" is definitely not supported and is a bit too strong regardless. "Misleading" may be supported but, again, might be a bit too strong because the author is not saying that these records are actually different from reality, just that they might be: "machinery may also have been...", "Valuation contentions...also uncertain. It is possible....", and all this "would be worth investigating."

(C) There is no support for them being "controversial" and we definitely don't know if they are "readily available." Maybe you would have to go into the lowest part of the deepest archives to get these records.

(E) "Fully understandable only by specialists" is definitely not supported and we have no idea idea if these records are "widely used," just that they are used by Rubenstein.

[judaydaday]

^ I thought the same thing for (B). Thanks Tommy!

(A) "Self-contradictory" is definitely not supported and is a bit too strong regardless. "Misleading" may be supported but, again, might be a bit too strong because the author is not saying that these records are actually different from reality, just that they might be: "machinery may also have been...", "Valuation contentions...also uncertain. It is possible....", and all this "would be worth investigating."

(C) There is no support for them being "controversial" and we definitely don't know if they are "readily available." Maybe you would have to go into the lowest part of the deepest archives to get these records.

(E) "Fully understandable only by specialists" is definitely not supported and we have no idea idea if these records are "widely used," just that they are used by Rubenstein.

Wouldn't provocative equate to controversial? Is this incorrect?

[ohthatpatrick]

Provocative and controversial ARE probably close enough to be synonyms in most contexts.

But 'provocative' is an adjective used in line 13 to describe Rubenstein's claims.

Q22 wants an adjective to describe "probate records, as a source of information".

I could make a provocative claim even though I used an encyclopedia as a source of information. That doesn't make the encyclopedia a provocative source of information.

Does that make sense?

[judaydaday]

Provocative and controversial ARE probably close enough to be synonyms in most contexts.

But 'provocative' is an adjective used in line 13 to describe Rubenstein's claims.

Q22 wants an adjective to describe "probate records, as a source of information".

I could make a provocative claim even though I used an encyclopedia as a source of information. That doesn't make the encyclopedia a provocative source of information.

Does that make sense?

THank you! That does make sense and I need to be sure to keep that in mind.

[uhdang]

Having read all the posts above, I can see why D)'s "difficult to interpret" is right, which I had trouble reasoning. But where can we find a direct support for being "revealing"?

[Mab6q]

Having read all the posts above, I can see why D)'s "difficult to interpret" is right, which I had trouble reasoning. But where can we find a direct support for being "revealing"?

"Revealing" matches the author's use of "provocative" in line 14. The author likes what Rubinstein has found, but he doesn't think it has answered all the questions yet. You could also find support from the last sentence ("partially convincing").

[uhdang]

Having read all the posts above, I can see why D)'s "difficult to interpret" is right, which I had trouble reasoning. But where can we find a direct support for being "revealing"?

"Revealing" matches the author's use of "provocative" in line 14. The author likes what Rubinstein has found, but he doesn't think it has answered all the questions yet. You could also find support from the last sentence ("partially convincing").

"provocative" from line 12 and "partially convincing" from the last sentence seem like more of a general impressions of Rubinstein's argument. Now that I look at this question again, it seems more appropriate to say that "revealing" refers to the fact that probate records tell us several elements about individuals, and "seemingly" tells us about certain facts from 17 to 22-- "These (probate records) indicate the value of personal property, excluding real property, left by individual at death. It does seem as if large fortunes were more frequently made in commerce than in industry ..."

[ohthatpatrick]

Great discussion.

I'd also add that the tone of line 23-24, "However, such [probate] records do not unequivocally make his case" is akin to saying, "The probate records tell us a lot, but they don't FULLY prove R's conclusion."

'Unequivocal' basically means certain, with no ambiguity.

So line 23-24 is essentially saying, "But there's still some ambiguity to what conclusions we can reach."

Even though I will almost always encourage finding line references for everything, "revealing" is a pretty safe word that could probably be justified by LACK of the alternative.

If a source of information weren't revealing, it would essentially be useless. Since we can't find support for that latter tone, it's pretty safe to say the author thinks the data has some use.