Ethnologoists Life Stories

[mundasingh123]

https://books.google.com/books?id=W5XOhZ ... &q&f=false
This is a google books preview of OG Verbal Review hopefully on a US server .
I have doubts regarding Q34
The only place editing is mentioned in the passage is "Editors often decided what elements were significant to the field research on a given tribe "
This led to important things being left out of the Life stories when the details were considered unimportant by the Editors
Shouldnt the Answer be D or E ?
Do please Let me know in case you are not able to have access to the content cos of server problems . In that case I will provide a Canada Link .

[Ilana@EconomistGMAT]

My inclination would be to choose C, rather than D or E.

This analogy has multiple elements: there is the relationship between the actors involved, and there is the "editorial" action. A good analogy should be analogous in both these respects.

Answer choice A fails to create a successful analogy in terms of the actors. An editor delivers an account about others, while a witness delivers an account of his or her own actions. This analogical flaw exists also in answer choice D - in which a chef conceals information about his own handiwork. In addition, the "editorial" action in D is concealment - very different from the "selection" exercised by an editor. Answer choice E also involves concealment of information about an opponent. So both action and the relationship between the actors are dissimilar to the relationship between an editor and the content of an ethnological report. Answer choice B also involves deliberate concealment.

Answer choice C is better in the following respects: a sports announcer's relationship to the team sport is favorable - this is a better analogy than that implied in the adversarial relationships described in the other answer choices. A sports announcer is also more similar to an editor, as the editor is only reporting about an activity to which he or she may be attracted or interested, but in which he or he does not participate and is therefore unfamiliar.

[mundasingh123]

My inclination would be to choose C, rather than D or E.

This analogy has multiple elements: there is the relationship between the actors involved, and there is the "editorial" action. A good analogy should be analogous in both these respects.

Answer choice A fails to create a successful analogy in terms of the actors. An editor delivers an account about others, while a witness delivers an account of his or her own actions. This analogical flaw exists also in answer choice D - in which a chef conceals information about his own handiwork. In addition, the "editorial" action in D is concealment - very different from the "selection" exercised by an editor. Answer choice E also involves concealment of information about an opponent. So both action and the relationship between the actors are dissimilar to the relationship between an editor and the content of an ethnological report. Answer choice B also involves deliberate concealment.

Answer choice C is better in the following respects: a sports announcer's relationship to the team sport is favorable - this is a better analogy than that implied in the adversarial relationships described in the other answer choices. A sports announcer is also more similar to an editor, as the editor is only reporting about an activity to which he or she may be attracted or interested, but in which he or he does not participate and is therefore unfamiliar.

In E arent you assuming that the politicial purposely fails to mention in the campaign speech the similarity in the positions "

[Ilana@EconomistGMAT]

Even so - even if this is a non-deliberate omission on the part of a politician - the analogy concerning the relationship between the actors involved is flawed. Political opponents who hold similar positions are in no way analogous to ethnology editors and the content of ethnological accounts. Political opponents are (a) adversaries and (b) share the same pursuits, knowledge, etc. They are both "agents" in the political game. This is a far cry from the relationship of observer/commentator that pertains between editor/natives or sports announcer/sportsmen. The editor/observer is an outsider to the activity about which he or she reports.

[mundasingh123]

Even so - even if this is a non-deliberate omission on the part of a politician - the analogy concerning the relationship between the actors involved is flawed. Political opponents who hold similar positions are in no way analogous to ethnology editors and the content of ethnological accounts. Political opponents are (a) adversaries and (b) share the same pursuits, knowledge, etc. They are both "agents" in the political game. This is a far cry from the relationship of observer/commentator that pertains between editor/natives or sports announcer/sportsmen. The editor/observer is an outsider to the activity about which he or she reports.

Thanks for the great explanation . It was very lucid .