Text 1Martinez's recent investigation into urban atmospheric pollution monitoring constitutes a notable deviation from conventional environmental rese...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Martinez's recent investigation into urban atmospheric pollution monitoring constitutes a notable deviation from conventional environmental research approaches. Established investigations in this domain gather information across prolonged timeframes and utilize stringent statistical protocols to guarantee dependability, while Martinez's work employs accelerated data collection methods and depends on initial computational frameworks. Several peers have expressed doubt about whether such techniques can yield valuable scientific understanding, with one critic observing that Martinez "appears to be testing methodological approaches without clear purpose."
Text 2Similar to other pioneering environmental investigations, Martinez's work explores how ecological data gathering can guide public health decision-making. Consistent with recognized research in this area, it investigates how analytical methods influence our comprehension of contamination trends in at-risk populations. While the approach is novel—indeed unconventional—this experimental methodology still addresses the core issues that have motivated the most significant atmospheric investigations of recent years.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the assessment of Martinez's study presented in Text 1?
By conceding that Martinez's expertise lies in traditional methods but maintaining that the innovative techniques show promise
By acknowledging that Martinez's approach clearly differs from established atmospheric research methods but insisting on its importance to the field nonetheless
By agreeing that the study is less rigorous than certain other atmospheric research but arguing that it should still be considered scientifically valuable
By concurring that the experimental nature of the methodology has led to skepticism but maintaining that such skepticism is unwarranted
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1 | |
| "Martinez's recent investigation into urban atmospheric pollution monitoring constitutes a notable deviation from conventional environmental research approaches." |
|
| "Established investigations in this domain gather information across prolonged timeframes and utilize stringent statistical protocols to guarantee dependability, while Martinez's work employs accelerated data collection methods and depends on initial computational frameworks." |
|
| "Several peers have expressed doubt about whether such techniques can yield valuable scientific understanding, with one critic observing that Martinez 'appears to be testing methodological approaches without clear purpose.'" |
|
| Text 2 | |
| "Similar to other pioneering environmental investigations, Martinez's work explores how ecological data gathering can guide public health decision-making." |
|
| "Consistent with recognized research in this area, it investigates how analytical methods influence our comprehension of contamination trends in at-risk populations." |
|
| "While the approach is novel—indeed unconventional—this experimental methodology still addresses the core issues that have motivated the most significant atmospheric investigations of recent years." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Text 1 criticizes Martinez's research as methodologically problematic and purposeless, while Text 2 defends it as pioneering work that addresses fundamental issues despite being unconventional.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? How would Text 2's author respond to Text 1's critical assessment of Martinez's study.
What type of answer do we need? A response that shows Text 2's author's likely reaction to the specific criticisms raised in Text 1.
Any limiting keywords? None identified.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Text 1 criticizes Martinez's work as deviating from conventional approaches and lacking clear purpose
- Text 2's author would likely acknowledge that yes, Martinez's approach differs from established methods (since Text 2 itself calls it "novel—indeed unconventional")
- Text 2's author would strongly defend its importance to the field
- The key is that Text 2's author doesn't deny the unconventional nature—they admit it—but argues this doesn't diminish its value because it addresses core issues that matter to atmospheric research
By conceding that Martinez's expertise lies in traditional methods but maintaining that the innovative techniques show promise
- Claims Martinez's expertise lies in "traditional methods"
- Text 2 never suggests Martinez uses traditional approaches
- Text 2 actually emphasizes that Martinez's work is "novel" and "unconventional"
By acknowledging that Martinez's approach clearly differs from established atmospheric research methods but insisting on its importance to the field nonetheless
- Acknowledges that Martinez's approach "clearly differs from established atmospheric research methods"
- Matches Text 2's admission that it's "novel—indeed unconventional"
- Insists "on its importance to the field nonetheless"
- Captures Text 2's core argument that despite being unconventional, it "addresses the core issues that have motivated the most significant atmospheric investigations"
By agreeing that the study is less rigorous than certain other atmospheric research but arguing that it should still be considered scientifically valuable
- Text 2's author doesn't concede that Martinez's study is "less rigorous"
- Goes further than acknowledging it's unconventional
- Text 2 frames Martinez's work positively as "pioneering" and "consistent with recognized research," not as less rigorous
By concurring that the experimental nature of the methodology has led to skepticism but maintaining that such skepticism is unwarranted
- Focuses on whether skepticism is "warranted" or not
- Text 2 doesn't really address the validity of the skepticism itself
- Text 2's approach is more about reframing the work positively rather than dismissing critics as wrong