Question
S1: Among most scholars, it is settled that Albert Einstein was a masterful physicist who deserves credit for work that forms the foundation of contemporary physics. S2: However, in her book In the Shadow of Albert Einstein: The Tragic Life of Mileva Einstein-Maric, Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric contends that this view is not accurate and that much of the credit should go to Mileva Einstein-Maric, the first wife of Albert Einstein. S3: Describing Einstein-Maric as an accomplished mathematician and physicist, Trbuhovic-Gjuric makes the case that Einstein and Einstein-Maric collaborated and that Einstein-Maric co-authored Einstein’s famous paper on relativity. S4: As evidence for these claims, Trbuhovic-Gjuric cites historical events and statements made by Einstein and Einstein-Maric, such as “I need my wife. S5: She solves for me all my mathematical problems.”
S6: Having examined the evidence cited by Trbuhovic-Gjuric and others who share Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s view, Galina Weinstein of Boston University asserts that the idea that Einstein-Maric made a significant unrecognized contribution to the field of physics exaggerates Einstein-Maric’s role. S7: For instance, Weinstein points out that, in correspondence cited as evidence that Einstein and Einstein-Maric collaborated, all ideas about physics discussed are Einstein’s. S8: Clearly, the more convincing case is Weinstein’s. S9: Her painstaking review of the evidence reveals that there is little support for the claim that Einstein-Maric played a major role in the creation of Einstein’s work. S10: Thus, while Mileva Einstein-Maric’s story is interesting in many ways, it is not the story of a forgotten contributor that some have made it out to be.
The passage is primary concerned with
evaluating contradictory positions on an individual’s contributions
contrasting the research methods used by two historians
explaining why an individual’s contributions have been forgotten
presenting the evidence for and against a certain conclusion
showing that historians often make claims without sufficient evidence
Question
S1: Among most scholars, it is settled that Albert Einstein was a masterful physicist who deserves credit for work that forms the foundation of contemporary physics. S2: However, in her book In the Shadow of Albert Einstein: The Tragic Life of Mileva Einstein-Maric, Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric contends that this view is not accurate and that much of the credit should go to Mileva Einstein-Maric, the first wife of Albert Einstein. S3: Describing Einstein-Maric as an accomplished mathematician and physicist, Trbuhovic-Gjuric makes the case that Einstein and Einstein-Maric collaborated and that Einstein-Maric co-authored Einstein’s famous paper on relativity. S4: As evidence for these claims, Trbuhovic-Gjuric cites historical events and statements made by Einstein and Einstein-Maric, such as “I need my wife. S5: She solves for me all my mathematical problems.”
S6: Having examined the evidence cited by Trbuhovic-Gjuric and others who share Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s view, Galina Weinstein of Boston University asserts that the idea that Einstein-Maric made a significant unrecognized contribution to the field of physics exaggerates Einstein-Maric’s role. S7: For instance, Weinstein points out that, in correspondence cited as evidence that Einstein and Einstein-Maric collaborated, all ideas about physics discussed are Einstein’s. S8: Clearly, the more convincing case is Weinstein’s. S9: Her painstaking review of the evidence reveals that there is little support for the claim that Einstein-Maric played a major role in the creation of Einstein’s work. S10: Thus, while Mileva Einstein-Maric’s story is interesting in many ways, it is not the story of a forgotten contributor that some have made it out to be.
The passage is primary concerned with
evaluating contradictory positions on an individual’s contributions
contrasting the research methods used by two historians
explaining why an individual’s contributions have been forgotten
presenting the evidence for and against a certain conclusion
showing that historians often make claims without sufficient evidence
Scott Woodbury-Stewart
Founder and Expert GMAT Instructor
Text Solution:
Reading this passage, we quickly see that it mentions some opinions. So, for the purpose of identifying the primary purpose of the passage, we can home in on those opinions because, as we know, opinions mentioned or expressed in a passage are generally closely connected to the primary purpose.
In the first paragraph, we see that S2 includes the opinion marker “contends” in “Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric contends that this view is not accurate and that much of the credit should go to Mileva Einstein-Maric.”
Since “this view” in S2 must refer to the view that “Albert Einstein was a masterful physicist who deserves credit for work …,” we can see that Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s opinion is that Einstein-Maric deserves “much of the credit” given to Einstein.
The next important point we come to is indicated by the opinion marker “asserts” in S5, which says, “Galina Weinstein of Boston University asserts that the idea that Einstein-Maric made a significant unrecognized contribution to the field of physics exaggerates Einstein-Maric’s role.”
We can see that the passage is saying that Weinstein disagrees with Trbuhovic-Gjuric regarding the contribution of Einstein-Maric.
Notice that, so far, the author has not expressed an opinion of her own.
The final important point in the passage is indicated by the opinion marker “clearly” in S7, which says, “Clearly, the more convincing case is Weinstein’s.” In this case, the opinion expressed is that of the author, who has come down on the side of the idea that Einstein-Maric did not play “a major role in the creation of Einstein’s work.”
Having found and reviewed these important points, we now have a clear sense of the purpose of this passage, which appears to be something along the lines of to evaluate two contrasting opinions about the contributions of Mileva Einstein-Maric.
CORRECT ANSWER(A) evaluating contradictory positions on an individual’s contributions
In considering the important points of this passage in the introduction to this explanation, we saw that two important points involve the opinions of Trbuhovic-Gjuric and Weinstein, which are contrasting, or “contradictory” opinions on Mileva Einstein-Maric’s contributions. So, “contradictory positions on an individual’s contributions” in this choice matches the passage.
The third important point we discussed is the author’s own opinion, S7, “Clearly, the more convincing case is Weinstein’s.”
We can see that S7 indicates that the author has evaluated the opinions of Trbuhovic-Gjuric and Weinstein and decided that Weinstein’s is the more valid one.
So, this choice accurately describes what the author does, in other words, it describes the primary purpose of the passage.
(B) contrasting the research methods used by two historians
This choice starts off correctly, because the passage does present a contrast, the contrast between the opinions of Trbuhovic-Gjuric and Weinstein.
However, this choice goes wrong partway through, because the passage does not contrast “research methods.”
(C) explaining why an individual’s contributions have been forgotten
Notice that this choice contradicts the passage. The last sentence of the passage says that Mileva Einstein-Maric’s story “is not the story of a forgotten contributor.” So, the passage does not explain why “an individual’s contributions have been forgotten.” Rather it implies that the contributions were not made.
(D) presenting the evidence for and against a certain conclusion
As we can see by considering the passage’s important points discussed in the introduction to this explanation, the passage is focused on evaluating two opinions about Mileva Einstein-Maric, not on presenting the evidence on which those opinions are based.
The passage does mention a little evidence, but presenting evidence is not the primary purpose.
(E) showing that historians often make claims without sufficient evidence
As we can see by considering the passage’s important points discussed in the introduction to this explanation, the passage is focused on evaluating two opinions about Mileva Einstein-Maric, not on “showing that historians often make claims without sufficient evidence.”
In particular, notice that the author’s own opinion, S7, is “Clearly, the more convincing case is Weinstein’s.” We can see that the author is not asserting anything about “sufficient evidence.” Rather, the author has decided that one opinion is “more convincing.”
