page 117( B) - 3 A
The differing points of view are not related to the material in the second paragraph .
But isnt the controversy higlighted in the 3rd para centered around the construct propunded by sarnoff as explained in the 2nd Para ?


Page 118 B - 5
The guide says that the Choice B is wrong because Nowhere in the passage is it written that Farnsworth wanted to develop his own educational programs .
The guide says that D is correct because if Sarnoff had involved Farnsworth in the development , manufacture or distribution of TV , Farnsworth would have gained more public Notoriety .
But we can argue that B is correct in a similar way .
Had Farnsworth developed his own educational programs , he would have gained greater Public Notoriety .
Nowhere in the passage is it written that Farnsworth wanted to be involved in the development , manufacture or distribution of the Invention or that Farnsworth wanted to work with Sarnoff .
Please help . Why is B wrong and D right .
Page 123 C ) 5 E
According to passage , geological evidence that water used to exist in the past was found The guide says E is correct but doesnt the word geological evidence imply that the evidence is indirect and related to the earth's crust . Geology is associated with a study of the earths crust . It means that some geolical formation was found . We can infer From This that there was water earlier

For problem 3, I think the explanation in the strategy guide is pretty much on point. Paragraph 2 identifies two different viewpoints on the use of television, and paragraph 3 goes into greater detail on one of those viewpoints. E is the only answer that does this..

For problem 5, your analysis regarding B is incorrect. There is nothing that indicates Farnsworth would have gained fame even if he developed his own programs. D is correct and does not require any assumption that Farnsworth wanted to gain more notoriety. Let’s face it: I would be far more famous if I were an NBA star. Notice that this is true regardless of the fact that I have never had any desire to be an NBA star..

For problem 5 of the next passage, you are reading too much into the passage. In particular, geology is not restricted to the study of the Earth’s crust. Bringing outside knowledge into an RC passage – especially incorrect outside knowledge – is always a bad idea..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

I also had the same problem regarding the Farnsworth question.

Where in the passage is it stated that working with Sarnoff would give you notoriety? I think it is safe to assume that thousands of people worked for Sarnoff and the ones the public knows (if at all) are Zworykin and Sarnoff.

Secondly, it is stated that Farnsworth was excluded from the process. It is not stated that he was excluded by Sarnoff.

On the other hand, it is clearly stated that Farnsworth didn't implement his ideas (= they remained on paper or in his head). Had he implemented his ideas, he would have had a chance to get some public notoriety. And to me this chance looks greater than the chance he would have got had he worked with Sarnoff.

Please clarify these points. Thank you.

Can I please ask someone to take a look at this one? Thanks a lot.

To address each of your three main paragraphs:

(1) You have to read the question more carefully: "MIGHT have earned greater public notoriety", not "WOULD have ..."..

(2) It doesn't matter how he was excluded from the process; Sarnoff could have undertaken to include him..

(3) Not only does your preferred alternative not show up in the answer choices, but it is also not supported by the passage..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Tim, thanks a lot for your reply. However, I am still not persuaded by the official answer. Also, I have some reservations about the points you made:



What's the difference between MIGHT have and WOULD have?



Ok, got your point. You're right



My alternative is (B) "Farnsworth had been able to develop and air his own educational programs

You are right in a sense that this alternative is not explicitly stated in the passage; however, I think it can be inferred.

So it'd be great if you could take a look at it once more.

Thanks for your time, Tim.

As for (1), ”might have” implies possibility, and ”would have” implies certainty. In (3), you cannot make this type of inference, and your answer choice is too much of a stretch..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor