GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
The description of Greens scholarship as (i)_____ is grossly misleadi
[#permalink]
26 Oct 2022, 22:50
26 Oct 2022, 22:50
1
Expert Reply
1
Bookmarks
00:00
Question Stats:
61% (00:37) correct
38% (01:00) wrong based on 31 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
The description of Green’s scholarship as (i)_____ is grossly misleading: while her research on interstellar particles is not especially novel, the conclusions she draws from her data are (ii)_____.
| Blank (i) | Blank (ii) |
|---|---|
| A. esoteric | D. remarkably pioneering |
| B. tendentious | E. dubiously supported |
| C. derivative | F. strangely comforting |
Part of the project: GRE TC,SE,RC, & CR Questions Every One DAILY Challenge - (2022)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gain 20 Kudos & Get FREE Access to GRE Prep Club TESTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gain 20 Kudos & Get FREE Access to GRE Prep Club TESTS
The description of Greens scholarship as (i)_____ is grossly misleadi
[#permalink]
28 Nov 2022, 03:29
28 Nov 2022, 03:29
1
Sir Carcass,
If the results are not especially novel, how can they be remarkably pioneering?
If the results are not especially novel, how can they be remarkably pioneering?
The description of Greens scholarship as (i)_____ is grossly misleadi
[#permalink]
28 Nov 2022, 07:02
28 Nov 2022, 07:02
Expert Reply
The description of Green’s scholarship as (i)_____ is grossly misleading: while her research on interstellar particles is not especially novel, the conclusions she draws from her data are (ii)_____.
reading her work, we can conclude that her arguments and research are NOT totally new, maybe we will not discover anything new.
Instead, even though her job was a known field in the literature, her conclusions are TOTALLY new. Brilliant. She discovered a new aspect that we did not know.
Turn out, the description of her work as derivative (something that we study further but that was already eviscerated) in the end what she discovered is brilliant and new. Therefore pioneering
Ask for further assistance
reading her work, we can conclude that her arguments and research are NOT totally new, maybe we will not discover anything new.
Instead, even though her job was a known field in the literature, her conclusions are TOTALLY new. Brilliant. She discovered a new aspect that we did not know.
Turn out, the description of her work as derivative (something that we study further but that was already eviscerated) in the end what she discovered is brilliant and new. Therefore pioneering
Ask for further assistance
