Question

Difficulty: HardFunction of Specific Details

While Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism—the doctrine that current geological processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, account for all of Earth's geological features—provided an indispensable temporal framework for Darwin's theory of natural selection, many contemporary geologists paradoxically resisted biological evolution. They accepted that incremental physical forces, such as riverine erosion or glacial advancement, could carve profound topographical transformations over eons. Yet, when confronted with the proposition that similarly imperceptible organic variations could engender entirely novel species, these same scholars balked. This cognitive dissonance stemmed largely from their ontological commitment to the immutability of biological 'types,' a relic of Platonic idealism that geological uniformitarianism had inadvertently bypassed in its focus on abiotic systems.

The author's reference to 'riverine erosion or glacial advancement' serves primarily to:

  1. provide concrete instances of the gradual changes that geologists accepted as capable of producing profound effects, thereby emphasizing the contradictory nature of their resistance to biological evolution.Answer
  2. B
    identify the specific geological mechanisms that Charles Lyell originally cited to prove that Earth's topography was shaped by observable, uniform rates.
  3. C
    describe the incremental physical forces that were hindered by the geologists' ontological commitment to the immutability of biological types.
  4. D
    illustrate the types of imperceptible physical forces that Darwin argued were functionally analogous to the organic variations that engender novel species.
  5. E
    explain how the indispensable temporal framework of geological uniformitarianism provided the necessary foundation for the theory of natural selection.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the reference provides concrete instances of the gradual changes geologists accepted, emphasizing the contradictory nature of their resistance to evolution.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the author mentions these geological processes to provide examples of the gradual, incremental changes that 19th-century geologists readily accepted. By establishing exactly what the geologists were willing to concede in the physical realm, the author structurally sets up the contrast that highlights the paradox and 'cognitive dissonance' in their refusal to accept analogous incremental changes in the biological realm.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the immediate context of the cited phrase.
The phrase 'riverine erosion or glacial advancement' is given as an example of 'incremental physical forces' that contemporary geologists 'accepted' could carve 'profound topographical transformations over eons.'
Understanding a detail's function requires first understanding what factual claim it directly supports.
2
Determine the logical relationship between this context and the surrounding argument.
The preceding sentence introduces a paradox regarding geologists resisting evolution. The following sentence contrasts their acceptance of physical forces with their rejection of 'similarly imperceptible organic variations' in biology.
The rhetorical function is determined by how the detail fits into the author's broader argumentative structure.
3
Synthesize the rhetorical purpose.
The author provides these examples to firmly establish the geologists' acceptance of gradual, incremental change in the physical realm, which serves to highlight the contradiction (or 'cognitive dissonance') of their refusal to accept analogous changes in the biological realm.
This synthesis separates the literal content of the phrase from its meta-argumentative role.
4
Evaluate the answer choices based on the synthesized purpose.
The correct choice accurately reflects that the examples are used to emphasize the contradictory nature of the geologists' resistance to biological evolution.
Distractors will often misstate the structural level (e.g., stating the function of the whole paragraph) or confuse who is making the argument.

Key Concept

Function of Specific Details in Rhetorical Structure
Rate this question