Carcass wrote:
1.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with
This is a primary purpose question, so it's going to work like every other question of that type.
Remember 2 things about
correct answers to Main Idea / Primary Purpose questions:
1/
EVERYTHING IN the answer must ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE PASSAGE2/ The answer
doesn't have to—and SHOULDN'T—get EVERY fact from the passage!#1 is the most basic thing about all correct answers on this exam (or on any other standardized test): They can't lie, and they can't say anything that's entirely unsupported.
#2 just comes from the literal meaning of "PRIMARY", "MAIN", "PRINCIPAL", or whatever equivalent word appears in the question.
All of these words imply that there is
other content that is SECONDARY, or PERIPHERAL (in contrast to "primary" / "main"). An answer choice that gives the PRIMARY purpose won't contain that information, so, you should expect to leave out at least some details from the passage.
The basic skeleton of stuff in the passage is
• Blue Clark pointed out something about the 1903
Lone Wolf decision....
• ... but didn't say anything about that decision's longer-term effects.
• Some people have said that those were already underway by 1871 (...if this were true then these things could not have been effects of the LW decision).
• But no, actually the LW decision "ended an era" (and therefore started another era). The only possible meaning of this part, given everything else above, is that the LW decision DID actually set in motion the longer-term changes described.
So basically there's ONE Supreme Court decision, and then some back-and-forth about its long-term effects (and whether those observations were, in fact, long-term effects of that specific court decision).
Let's look at the choices—keeping in mind that anything that isn't supported by the text makes an answer WRONG, even if everything else in that answer choice is perfectly well supported.
Quote:
A. identifying similarities in two different theories
There are two different schools of thought about the long-term changes that the passage describes: one asserting that these changes began in 1903 with the LW decision, and another saying that they had actually begun back in 1871.
These are fundamentally
contrasting ideas. The passage does not actually describe any significant points of similarity between these points of view, so A is wrong.
(Also, using the word "theories"—normally reserved for an internally consistent
set of hypotheses—for 2
single ideas isn't really accurate either. Both the GRE and the GMAT are very precise about these choices of nouns!)
Quote:
B. evaluating a work of scholarship
The only work of scholarship that the passage mentions is Blue Clark's—which is mentioned only in passing. The main debate in the passage is between two different hypothesized timelines for an effect that Blue Clark completely neglected to address at all! So B is wrong.
Quote:
C. analyzing the significance of a historical event
With the "historical event" here representing the 1903 LW decision, this choice properly describes everything listed above.
• Blue Clark's study, though noted only in transition to a discussion of something he DIDN'T talk about, is still about the 1903 LW decision and its causes and effects;
• A longer-term effect is then mentioned, followed by debating points of view on whether that effect resulted from the 1903 LW decision.
—If something
resulted from the LW decision, that's definitely a point about the significance of the LW decisoin.
—If something
did NOT result from the LW decision, that's ALSO a point about the significance of the LW decision.
So, all of the major elements of the passage are, indeed, about the significance of that decision.
C is the correct answer.Quote:
D. debunking a revisionist interpretation
A "revisionist interpretation" would reject something that's currently believed (widely, by consensus, etc... enough to be 'accepted', basically), and replace that idea with something different and new that's purportedly more accurate than the old belief.
"Debunking" a revisionist interpretation would mean defeating the NEW interpretation as a possibility—and, therefore, re-instituting the old one (unless there are two or more proposed revisionist interpretations, in which case debunking one of them could still leave others on the table in addition to the original set of beliefs/conclusions.)
Nothing here is described as an already accepted belief/explanation, though.
Nor is anything described as a new, updated set of points that could replace the original, resulting in a better understanding.
In other words, there's no 'original/current/accepted interpretation' and there's no 'revisionist interpretation'. D is wrong.
Quote:
E. exploring the relationship between law and social reality
This is way way way way WAY too general. The passage is about whether
exactly one effect was or wasn't a result of
exactly one court case.
The idea that ONE debate about ONE set of specifics could possibly explore any sort of general between massive constructs as varied as 'the law' or 'social reality' is just laughable. You should be able to eliminate this answer choice within a few seconds.
It's C.