#11 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

I am struggling to see where the "positive attitude" came from in the passage. I thought that all we know about H, SL and FSF is that the "the earlier distrust of a minority of intellectuals did not endure...much of Stilgoe's evidence indicates that it did." So that means HJ, SL, or F.S.F are evidence that distrust of minority persisted. The author says, "If we look at the work of F N, E, or HA then the case would have been much stronger" so in other words FN, E, or HA did show distrust but it did not endure. Where did the positive attitude come from?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi lun,

This is a Conceptual Reference question, which I find that a lot of students nowadays, struggle with. In other words, this passage and question are asking you to keep track of a lot of moving parts in order to understand the author's true point and the ways that he is comparing the intellectuals to one another. What I think is great, is that you are practicing with the RC passages from the 90's. It's my personal opinion that you really get a great workout with this RC passage because you are being asked a more difficult type of question. Think of this as heavy lifting, increasing your strength so that you can easily do the weights on test day.

So enough metaphors, let's talk about the question. The best way to approach these kinds of questions is to realize that they are asking you something much broader than a Specific Reference question, so your review when you look back at the passage needs to be broader and more inclusive. With that in mind, the key to this question starts with the sentence at around line 43 that starts with "the volume..." What the author is trying to say in a convoluted way is that Stilgo's evidence does not say what he thinks it says. And so, when Stilgo discusses James, Lewis and Fitzgerald. The author thinks those guys viewed the railroad with more positivity than Norris, O'Neil and Adams who actually viewed it quite negatively. That concludes with the final lines about enthusiatic supporters linking that idea to James, Lewis and Fitzgerald giving you that positive attitude you were looking for.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[Nicholas Noyes]

Hi lun,

This is a Conceptual Reference question, which I find that a lot of students nowadays, struggle with. In other words, this passage and question are asking you to keep track of a lot of moving parts in order to understand the author's true point and the ways that he is comparing the intellectuals to one another. What I think is great, is that you are practicing with the RC passages from the 90's. It's my personal opinion that you really get a great workout with this RC passage because you are being asked a more difficult type of question. Think of this as heavy lifting, increasing your strength so that you can easily do the weights on test day.

So enough metaphors, let's talk about the question. The best way to approach these kinds of questions is to realize that they are asking you something much broader than a Specific Reference question, so your review when you look back at the passage needs to be broader and more inclusive. With that in mind, the key to this question starts with the sentence at around line 43 that starts with "the volume..." What the author is trying to say in a convoluted way is that Stilgo's evidence does not say what he thinks it says. And so, when Stilgo discusses James, Lewis and Fitzgerald. The author thinks those guys viewed the railroad with more positivity than Norris, O'Neil and Adams who actually viewed it quite negatively. That concludes with the final lines about enthusiatic supporters linking that idea to James, Lewis and Fitzgerald giving you that positive attitude you were looking for.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

Hi,
I am still not understanding where the "positivity" is coming from. If Stilgoe looked at the work of (Norris, O'Neill, or Adams) wouldn't that align with his negative view? This passage is difficult and I just cannot see the connection here.

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may have misunderstood Stilgoe's thesis here, Nicholas. According to the passage, Stilgoe has claimed that after 1880, distrust of the railroads went away, and in lines 34-39 we see that part of his evidence is the work of a number of people who were "devotees of the railroad." In other words, his evidence is based on people that really liked the railroads, who were devoted to it, and those are some very positive vibes. If the writings of Norris, O'Neill, and Adams would have helped his argument, then those writers must have also liked the railroads (or at least, liked them more than James, Lewis, and Fitzgerald did).

In short, and to simplify a bit, Stilgoe says that after 1880, people liked the railroads. The author says those writers would have helped him make that case. Therefore, they must have liked them.

Don't confuse Stilgoe here with what the author is arguing! The author of the passage is saying that Stilgoe failed to make a good case, but it is Stilgoe's argument that we should be reviewing in order to answer this question.