Passage A
For centuries, cartography struggled against the limits of human subjectivity and incomplete data. Early maps were as much artistic expressions of cultural worldview as they were navigational aids, often populated with speculative landmasses, mythical beasts, and symbolic illustrations that reflected the values of their creators. The advent of modern Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and satellite-based remote sensing, however, has transformed mapmaking from an interpretive craft into a rigorous, quantitative science. By utilizing precise coordinate systems, radar telemetry, and automated data collection, modern GIS eliminates the idiosyncratic biases of the individual cartographer. The primary objective of the contemporary cartographer is no longer to represent space artistically, but to compile and display empirical data with mathematical fidelity. Through standardized layers of digital information, GIS provides an objective, verifiable model of the Earth's surface that can be systematically updated in real time. This technological shift has democratized geographic data, ensuring that navigation, urban planning, and environmental monitoring rely on precise calculations rather than subjective human perception. In this context, the map is no longer an argumentative text designed to persuade a patron or assert political dominance; rather, it is a transparent, neutral tool. The rhetorical flourish has been replaced by the database, offering a direct reflection of physical reality.
Passage B
To view a map as a neutral, objective mirror of the world is to ignore the fundamental rhetoric inherent in all design. While proponents of digital cartography argue that Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have purged subjectivity from mapmaking, the reality is that every map remains a highly selective argument. The cartographer, even when operating with satellite data, must make active choices regarding projection, simplification, and categorization. For instance, the decision of which projection to use—whether preserving shape, area, or direction—inevitably distorts certain parts of the globe, thereby prioritizing some regions over others. Furthermore, the selection of color schemes, scale, and symbols is not dictated by raw data but by design choices that direct the viewer’s attention and shape their emotional response. A map highlighting industrial zones in stark red, for example, makes a very different argument than one rendering them in muted gray. Rather than eliminating bias, modern digital tools have merely obscured it behind a veneer of scientific authority. By presenting data as self-evident and objective, modern maps conceal the subjective priorities and human decisions that govern their creation, making them even more rhetorically potent than their artistic predecessors.
Which of the following best describes the difference in how the authors of Passage A and Passage B use rhetorical and stylistic choices to support their respective arguments?
- APassage A uses concrete design examples, such as map projections and color contrasts, to validate its claims of scientific advancement, whereas Passage B employs binary contrasts to argue that GIS mapping has successfully purged all human bias.
- BPassage A adopts a highly personal, reflective tone to recount the history of cartography, whereas Passage B maintains a completely neutral, non-argumentative style by presenting raw data without stylistic embellishment.
- CPassage A relies on rhetorical questions to prompt the reader to question historical maps, whereas Passage B utilizes a formal scientific register to establish that satellite telemetry is inherently value-free.
- Passage A utilizes binary contrasts (such as "interpretive craft" versus "quantitative science") to frame cartographic evolution as objective progress, whereas Passage B employs concrete design scenarios (such as projection distortions and color choices) to demonstrate that cartography remains an inherently subjective argument.Cevap