While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:Dr. Sarah Chen's study on coral reef restoration was published...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
- Dr. Sarah Chen's study on coral reef restoration was published in Marine Biology Journal in 2023.
- A reviewer for Nature called the methodology "innovative and rigorous" and praised Chen's "systematic approach to ecosystem recovery."
- A reviewer for Science Today described it as "groundbreaking research with meticulous attention to experimental design."
- A reviewer for Environmental Research Quarterly deemed it "a significant contribution to marine conservation."
The student wants to emphasize a similarity in how reviewers responded to Chen's study. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
Reviewers commended Chen's study for its scientific rigor, with Nature highlighting her "systematic approach" and Science Today likewise praising the "meticulous attention to experimental design."
While Environmental Research Quarterly focused on the study's broader contribution, Nature zeroed in on Chen's innovative methodology.
Chen's study, which was extensively reviewed by scientific journals, focuses on coral reef restoration techniques.
Described as "a significant contribution to marine conservation" by Environmental Research Quarterly, Chen's study addresses ecosystem recovery methods.
Looking at this rhetorical synthesis question, I need to follow the detailed process while adhering to all the critical principles.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Dr. Sarah Chen's study on coral reef restoration was published in Marine Biology Journal in 2023. |
|
| A reviewer for Nature called the methodology "innovative and rigorous" and praised Chen's "systematic approach to ecosystem recovery." |
|
| A reviewer for Science Today described it as "groundbreaking research with meticulous attention to experimental design." |
|
| A reviewer for Environmental Research Quarterly deemed it "a significant contribution to marine conservation." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Visual Structure Map:
CHEN'S STUDY (2023, Marine Bio Journal)
↓
REVIEWER RESPONSES
- Nature → methodology praise ("innovative/rigorous", "systematic approach")
- Science Today → research quality praise ("groundbreaking", "meticulous design")
- Environmental Research Quarterly → impact praise ("significant contribution")
Main Point: Multiple scientific journals reviewed Chen's coral reef restoration study positively, each highlighting different aspects of its quality.
Argument Flow: The notes establish the study's basic publication details, then present three different reviewer responses from respected journals, all offering positive assessments but focusing on different strengths of the work.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Looking at our analysis, all three reviewers gave positive assessments, but we need to find what's similar about their responses
- Nature praised the "innovative and rigorous" methodology and "systematic approach"
- Science Today called it "groundbreaking research with meticulous attention to experimental design"
- These both focus on the scientific rigor and careful methodology of the study
- Environmental Research Quarterly focused more on the broader impact as a "significant contribution"
- The right answer should show how at least two reviewers similarly praised the study's scientific rigor and methodological quality, even if they used different specific words
- So the right answer should demonstrate that multiple reviewers praised Chen's work for its scientific rigor and methodological strength
Reviewers commended Chen's study for its scientific rigor, with Nature highlighting her "systematic approach" and Science Today likewise praising the "meticulous attention to experimental design."
✓ Correct
- This choice directly identifies the similarity - both Nature and Science Today praised the study's scientific rigor
- It specifically quotes Nature's "systematic approach" and Science Today's "meticulous attention to experimental design" to show how both reviewers focused on methodological quality
- The phrase "likewise praising" explicitly signals the similarity the student wants to emphasize
While Environmental Research Quarterly focused on the study's broader contribution, Nature zeroed in on Chen's innovative methodology.
✗ Incorrect
- This choice emphasizes differences rather than similarities
- Uses "while" to contrast Environmental Research Quarterly's broader focus with Nature's specific methodology focus
- Directly contradicts the goal of showing similarity in reviewer responses
Chen's study, which was extensively reviewed by scientific journals, focuses on coral reef restoration techniques.
✗ Incorrect
- Simply states that the study was "extensively reviewed" without showing any similarity in the responses
- Doesn't quote or reference any specific reviewer comments
- Fails to demonstrate what was similar about how reviewers responded
Described as "a significant contribution to marine conservation" by Environmental Research Quarterly, Chen's study addresses ecosystem recovery methods.
✗ Incorrect
- Only mentions one reviewer (Environmental Research Quarterly)
- Cannot show similarity when only discussing a single response
- Doesn't accomplish the goal of demonstrating how reviewers similarly responded