At the end of the nineteenth century, a rising interest

[P patanjali.purpose]

At the end of the nineteenth century, a rising interest in Native American customs and an increasing desire to understand Native American culture prompted ethnologists to begin recording the life stories of Native American. Ethnologists had a distinct reason for wanting to hear the stories: they were after linguistic or anthropological data that would supplement their own field observations, and they believed that the personal stories, even of a single individual, could increase their understanding of the cultures that they had been observing from without. In addition many ethnologists at the turn of the century believed that Native American manners and customs were rapidly disappearing, and that it was important to preserve for posterity as much information as could be adequately recorded before the cultures disappeared forever.

There were, however, arguments against this method as a way of acquiring accurate and complete information. Franz Boas, for example, described autobiographies as being “of limited value, and useful chiefly for the study of the perversion of truth by memory,” while Paul Radin contended that investigators rarely spent enough time with the tribes they were observing, and inevitably derived results too tinged by the investigator’s own emotional tone to be reliable.

Even more importantly, as these life stories moved from the traditional oral mode to recorded written form, much was inevitably lost. Editors often decided what elements were significant to the field research on a given tribe. Native Americans recognized that the essence of their lives could not be communicated in English and that events that they thought significant were often deemed unimportant by their interviewers. Indeed, the very act of telling their stories could force Native American narrators to distort their cultures, as taboos had to be broken to speak the names of dead relatives crucial to their family stories. Despite all of this, autobiography remains a useful tool for ethnological research: such personal reminiscences and impressions, incomplete as they may be, are likely to throw more light on the working of the mind and emotions than any amount of speculation from an ethnologist or ethnological theorist from another culture.

Which of the following is most similar to the actions of nineteenth-century ethnologists in their editing of the life stories of Native Americans?

(A) A witness in a jury trial invokes the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid relating personally incriminating evidence.
(B) A stockbroker refuses to divulge the source of her information on the possible future increase in a stock’s value.
(C) A sports announcer describes the action in a team sport with which he is unfamiliar.
(D) A chef purposely excludes the special ingredient from the recipe of his prizewinning dessert.
(E) A politician fails to mention in a campaign speech the similarities in the positions held by her opponent for political office and by herself.

1) Pls explain your pick pointing to appropriate part of the passage.
2) Why INDEED is used in the bold sentence

Thanks for your time.


OA - C

[M MakeUrTimeCount]

Even more importantly, as these life stories moved from the traditional oral mode to recorded written form, much was inevitably lost. Editors often decided what elements were significant to the field research on a given tribe

This tells us that the ethomologists were playing with the knowledge they received for their own purpose and were not concerned with the actual significance of the story.

C) support this.



The use if indeed it to emphasise that although the tribe people knew that their stories will not be valued the way it should have had been. Over to this, the act of telling story was causing them to distort their culture.

[BTG Expert Team]

What we see: a Reading Comprehension analogy question: which situation is most like what the ethnologists did when they edited the life stories. We need the exact shape of their action, then the choice with the same shape. The question also asks why the bold sentence starts with "Indeed"; that is answered near the end.

Step 1. Find what the passage says about the editing.
What we see: paragraph 3 says "Editors often decided what elements were significant to the field research on a given tribe" and "events that they thought significant were often deemed unimportant by their interviewers." It also says the essence of their lives "could not be communicated in English."
What it means: the editors were outsiders. They chose what mattered by their own view, and since they did not share the culture, they cut or missed what mattered most to the people living it. Paragraph 2 says the same thing: Radin warns that investigators spent too little time with the tribes and their results were colored by their own feelings.
What we do and why: put the pattern in plain words before reading the choices: someone from outside describes and filters something they do not fully understand, so the account loses what insiders think is important. Nobody hides anything on purpose.

Step 2. Test each choice against that pattern.
A: the witness holds back facts about himself to protect himself. An insider hiding his own story on purpose.
B: the stockbroker keeps her source secret on purpose. Secrecy, not a lack of understanding.
The sports announcer: an outsider to the sport describes it for an audience. Because he does not know the game, he will stress the wrong moments and miss the ones the players care about. That is the editors' problem exactly.
D: the chef leaves out his own secret ingredient on purpose.
E: the politician leaves out a fact on purpose because it hurts her campaign.

Step 3. Rule out the "on purpose" choices.
What we see: A, B, D and E all describe someone who knows the important fact and leaves it out deliberately.
What it means: the passage never says the ethnologists hid anything. They wanted more information, not less ("they believed that the personal stories ... could increase their understanding"). What went wrong was their outside judgment of what was "significant."
What we do and why: drop every deliberate omission. Only the announcer is left.

The trap: D or E. They feel close because something important gets left out, just like in the edited stories. But the chef and the politician know what matters and hide it. The editors left things out because they did not know those things mattered.

Why "Indeed": the sentence before it says that much was lost, since events Native Americans thought important were judged unimportant. "Indeed" means "in fact, and even more than that." It adds a stronger point in the same direction: the loss started even before the editing, because simply telling the story forced narrators to break taboos, such as speaking the names of dead relatives, and so to distort their own culture. "Indeed" builds on the claim before it; it never changes direction the way "however" does.

Takeaway: On an analogy question, name the passage's action first: who acts, why, and what goes wrong. Then reject choices that match only the surface (something is left out) but not the reason (they did not understand it versus they hid it on purpose).

Answer: C