Translator: I was trying to determine the meaning of a particular passage from a certain nineteenth century author. The phrase...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
Translator: I was trying to determine the meaning of a particular passage from a certain nineteenth century author. The phrase would literally be translated as 'The duck rose and fell as on a seesaw.' But there was only a one-letter difference between the word for duck in the original language and the word for spirit in the original language. I had competing interests: first, I wanted to be faithful to the words as they were written by the original author, but second, I had to consider how likely it was that the author meant to write spirit and whether there was a typographical error by either the author or the publisher.
Select for Support for translating as spirit the statement that, if true, provides the strongest support for translating the word in question as spirit. For Weakens that support, select the statement that, if true, most weakens that supporting statement. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
Argument Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "I was trying to determine the meaning of a particular passage from a certain nineteenth century author" |
|
| "The phrase would literally be translated as 'The duck rose and fell as on a seesaw.'" |
|
| "But there was only a one-letter difference between the word for duck...and the word for spirit" |
|
| "I wanted to be faithful to the words as they were written" |
|
| "I had to consider how likely it was that the author meant to write spirit and whether there was a typographical error" |
|
Argument Structure
- Main issue: Should the word be translated as "duck" (literal) or "spirit" (possible intended meaning)?
- Competing principles: Faithfulness to text vs. likely author intent
- Key consideration: The possibility of a typographical error by either author or publisher
- Decision factors: What evidence would support one translation over the other?
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
Understanding What Each Part Asks
Part 1: "Support for translating as spirit"
- We need evidence that makes "spirit" more likely than "duck"
- This could involve author's writing patterns, context, or likelihood of error
Part 2: "Weakens that support"
- We need something that undermines the Part 1 reasoning
- This creates a logical tension - showing why the support for "spirit" might not be conclusive
Prethinking for Each Part
For Part 1 (Support for "spirit"):
- If the author frequently writes about spiritual matters but rarely about ducks
- If the metaphor makes more sense with "spirit" than "duck"
- If there's evidence suggesting a typo is likely
For Part 2 (Weakens that support):
- If the specific work's context favors "duck"
- If there's evidence against a typo occurring
- If the literal reading makes perfect sense
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Evaluating Each Choice
Choice 1: "Taken as a whole, the author's collected writings have vastly more references to spirit than they do to ducks."
- What it says: Author generally writes about spirit much more than ducks
- For Part 1: STRONG - If the author rarely writes about ducks but often about spirit, "spirit" becomes more probable
- For Part 2: Not applicable - this supports "spirit" translation
Choice 2: "Last month there were newspaper cartoons in the original language that showed ducks on playground equipment."
- What it says: Recent cartoons show ducks on playground equipment (like seesaws)
- For Part 1: Not supportive - this is about current times, not 19th century
- For Part 2: Weak - doesn't directly address the Part 1 reasoning
Choice 3: "The publisher of the author's works was meticulous and rarely made typographical mistakes."
- What it says: Publisher was careful and unlikely to make errors
- For Part 1: Not supportive - suggests "duck" is correct as written
- For Part 2: Could weaken typo-based arguments, but not pattern-based ones
Choice 4: "The work in which the sentence occurs has more references to ducks than to spirit."
- What it says: This specific work mentions ducks more than spirit
- For Part 1: Not supportive - favors "duck" translation
- For Part 2: STRONG - Directly contradicts the pattern-based reasoning from Choice 1
Choice 5: "The author was meticulous and rarely made typographical mistakes."
- What it says: Author was careful and unlikely to make errors
- For Part 1: Not supportive - suggests "duck" is correct as written
- For Part 2: Could weaken typo arguments, but doesn't address pattern-based reasoning
The Correct Answers
For Part 1: Choice 1 provides the strongest support for translating as "spirit." If the author's overall body of work contains vastly more spiritual references than duck references, it creates a strong statistical argument that "spirit" was the intended word.
For Part 2: Choice 4 most effectively weakens that support. Even if the author generally writes more about spirit, the fact that this particular work contains more duck references than spirit references suggests that in this context, "duck" is actually more appropriate. This creates a compelling counter-argument based on immediate context versus overall patterns.
Common Traps to Highlight
The Contemporary Reference Trap (Choice 2): While the newspaper cartoons might seem relevant because they show ducks on playground equipment (connecting to the seesaw metaphor), this is actually irrelevant. These are recent cartoons, not from the 19th century, so they tell us nothing about what the original author intended.
The Typo-Focus Trap (Choices 3 & 5): While these choices about meticulousness seem important, they don't effectively counter pattern-based reasoning. Even if neither author nor publisher typically makes mistakes, this doesn't address whether "spirit" or "duck" is more contextually appropriate based on the author's writing patterns.