Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumEvaluating Relevance for Adding or Deleting Content

A writer is editing a draft of an essay about deep-sea discoveries. The writer is considering adding the following sentence to the paragraph:

"Ichthyology is the branch of zoology that is devoted to the study of fish, including bony fish, cartilaginous fish, and jawless fish."

Here is the paragraph:

In 1938, museum curator Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer was invited to inspect an unusual fish caught off the coast of South Africa. She was astonished to see a five-foot-long creature with fleshy, limb-like lobed fins, unlike any modern fish she had ever encountered. Unable to identify the specimen, Courtenay-Latimer sent a description and sketch to J.L.B. Smith, a local chemistry professor and amateur ichthyologist. [Point of insertion] Smith immediately recognized the fish as a coelacanth, a species previously believed to have gone extinct 66 million years ago. The discovery of this "living fossil" sent shockwaves through the scientific community, forcing biologists to re-evaluate their understanding of vertebrate evolution.

Should the writer make this addition at the indicated [Point of insertion]?

  1. A
    Yes, because it defines a technical term that is essential to understanding Smith's specific field of expertise.
  2. B
    Yes, because it explains why Courtenay-Latimer decided to contact Smith instead of another scientist.
  3. No, because it interrupts the narrative flow of the paragraph by introducing a general definition that is not central to the story of the coelacanth's discovery.Answer
  4. D
    No, because it contradicts the paragraph's assertion that Smith was only an amateur in the field.

Answer

The correct decision is not to add the sentence because it interrupts the narrative flow of the paragraph by introducing a definition that is not central to the story of the coelacanth's discovery.
The correct option is the one stating that the addition should not be made because it interrupts the narrative flow with an unnecessary definition. The paragraph is focused on the chronological story of Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer discovering the coelacanth and sending it to J.L.B. Smith for identification. Adding a general definition of ichthyology digresses from this main focus and disrupts the flow of the narrative.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the main focus of the paragraph.
The paragraph describes the narrative events surrounding the discovery of the coelacanth in 1938 and its identification by J.L.B. Smith.
Establishing the focus of the paragraph allows us to evaluate whether the proposed sentence contributes to or detracts from that focus.
2
Evaluate the relevance of the proposed sentence.
The proposed sentence defines the word 'ichthyology'. While the paragraph mentions that Smith was an amateur ichthyologist, defining the field itself is an unnecessary digression from the historical narrative of the discovery.
Determining whether the detail serves the main topic helps identify if the sentence should be added.
3
Select the option that matches the decision (No) and the correct justification.
The correct choice must state that the sentence should not be added because it introduces a definition that is not central to the story and interrupts the narrative flow.
This eliminates the 'Yes' options and the 'No' option with the incorrect justification.

Key Concept

Evaluating the relevance of details to ensure paragraph unity and narrative flow.
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating Relevance for Adding or Deleting Content

More questions from this topic