Q9

[amywasylyk]

For the first question, I don't understand why (B) is not the correct choice.

From what I gathered from the passage, the author believes that custom-made medical illustrations would a visual presentation of data that otherwise would be complex (lines 50-55). So wouldn't road maps (a visual representation for verbal directions) be the most analogous? It would be difficult to understand verbal directions about an area that one was unfamiliar with and the map would be much easier to comprehend.

I guess I can see why (A) is the credited answer if I think about it like the engineer is giving a presentation with complicated engineering data, formula, etc. Or wait, I think maybe I answered my own question? Would it simply be because the schematics accompany the oral presentation and in the map/directions analogy, the map does not supplement any other presentation? Maybe I over thought this - any one with any feedback? Thanks in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

Excellent work.

Thanks for "televising" your thought process on this question. The appropriate window to consider is definitely the last paragraph, although I would particularly suggest the last sentence as our strongest link to answering this question.

I would similarly be down to (A) and (B) after a first pass, and the distinction you drew is critical.

In A, the illustration supplements an oral explanation.

In B, the illustration replaces (or obviates the need to get) any oral explanation.

In the context of the passage, the author is implying that medical experts will deliver their testimony no matter what, but that the illustration can help laymen convert that testimony into more visual imagery.

So since the illustration accompanies the complex testimony, (A) is a better match.

Nicely done, retroactively.

[farhadshekib]

Excellent work.

Thanks for "televising" your thought process on this question. The appropriate window to consider is definitely the last paragraph, although I would particularly suggest the last sentence as our strongest link to answering this question.

I would similarly be down to (A) and (B) after a first pass, and the distinction you drew is critical.

In A, the illustration supplements an oral explanation.

In B, the illustration replaces (or obviates the need to get) any oral explanation.

In the context of the passage, the author is implying that medical experts will deliver their testimony no matter what, but that the illustration can help laymen convert that testimony into more visual imagery.

So since the illustration accompanies the complex testimony, (A) is a better match.

Nicely done, retroactively.

Indeed, this is actually directly supported in lines 27-30, which suggests that expert testimony is necessary to verify the accuracy of such illustrations.

[JamesM914]

I went with B, but that's because I didn't know the meaning of the word schematic. Had I known the meaning I would have gotten this question right.

[JesseM947]

It feels weird responding to year and a half old post but I was just running through this passage and had a question:

I like most people, was down to A and B and chose B because the author never explicitly stated that medical experts would testify alongside the medical illustration. In lines 27-30, the author mentions that even in the rare instance that an "an unscrupulous illustrator" creates a biased medical drawing, "such illustration would be inadmissible as evidence in the courtroom unless a medical expert were present to testify to their accuracy." My mind, this doesn't insinuate that a medical expert would always or even normally testifying alongside the illustration, it just means that even in the highly unlikely event that a medical illustrator was on the take and created a bias illustration, an expert would correct it.

I understand how the analogy of answer A makes sense, however, I somehow missed the language or inference that would lead us to say medical illustrations were presented alongside experts.

This issue lead me to get question number 11 wrong as well.

Any guidance you could provide here would be greatly appreciated

Thanks in advance for your help!

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry for the delayed response. This one slipped through the cracks.

I see what you're saying. The passage never really does a great job of clearly conveying that these illustrations will be a visual aid that accompanies someone speaking.

However, I guess it's kind of common sense if you picture some visual aid up on an easel at a trial. It's not like the lawyer would just say, "Exhibit A", put the visual aid up, and sit down.

Any time I've ever seen that sort of thing portrayed in TV / movies, the illustration is there while the lawyers cross examine witnesses and talk to the jury.

The line you were quoting from the 2nd paragraph is written in a way where you COULD interpret it to mean, "You only bring in a medical expert when an illustration has been made by an unscrupulous illustrator".

But that would kinda go against common sense. How would they know beforehand whether it was made by an unscrupulous illustrator?

Instead, that line is implying that having a fraudulent illustration won't really help you circumvent "your inability to find medical experts to support your clients' claims" because you (always) need a medical expert there to testify to the accuracy of the illustration.

In the last paragraph, it almost sounds like they're pitting illustrations vs. verbal descriptions (as though you'd choose one or the other). But what they're trying to say is that you're GONNA have the expert testimony, but since the verbal description is often so complex it can be "quite instructive" to ALSO have the illustration, so that people can "adequately understand [the testimony] it at least party visual terms
."

Overall, I think you're right that there's no strict reading of the text that absolutely conveys that an expert is still offering verbal testimony (other than maybe the fact that "thinking at least party visual" seems to imply that there's some other part that isn't visual).

We kinda need some blend of context, common sense, and outside knowledge to interpret that what they're talking about is using an illustration to ASSIST, not replace, an expert's testimony.

That does make Q9 pretty obnoxious. I'm not sure what it has to do with Q11, though, since the support for (E) is pretty explicit in 25-29