Passage Discussion

[raymondcezar]

As far as the two sides of the scale go, one side is that the workings of the brains are transmitted exlusively by electircal signals, and the other being that these electrical impulses are actually chemically guided instead.

Although there are two sides, could it be possible that the author does not choose a side? In the last paragraph, we do get the sense that the author has optimism in what the new discoveries may bring. However, I'm not so sure that the author has an arbitrary decision as to if he or she stands by a certain side of the debate.

I might as well provide my passage map as well.

P1: Intro to 2 different theories (A & B)
P2: Acceptance/obstacle
P3: Explanation of new evidence
P4: Possible consequences/benefit of the new evidence for B

Thank you for your help!

[tommywallach]

Hey Raymond,

I love that you're really applying your RC knowledge on this one, as well as making your map of the passage.

In my opinion, this is the rare passage that doesn't actually have two sides. The first paragraph does float two theories, but the passage comes down so definitively on one side that it's impossible to maintain a two-sided argument.

However, I do find it worrying that you think the author doesn't come down on a side. However you view the overall structure, it's very clear here that the author believes the neurotransmitter theory:

"this theory has gradually won acceptance" (20)
"researchers have gathered enough evidence for a convincing explanation" (29)
"the new evidence shows..." (33)
"It has also been discovered..." (45)

There's no doubt left in this argument, and really a two-sided argument will allow some room for the other side.

Paragraph 1: Background/Theory of Neuro
Paragraph 2: Last doubt removed
Paragraph 3: How last doubt removed/science of receptors
Paragraph 4: More on science of receptors

Hope that makes sense!

-t

[raymondcezar]

Hi Tommy,

Thank you for replying! I do have a follow-up question or two as to what you had posted regarding the author siding with the neurotransmitter theory.

You listed a few lines where the author sides with the theory, specifically, numbers 20, 29, 33, and 45. For line 29, the author uses the word "convincing," thus expressing an opinion. As for the other lines, I do not see any key words indicating some sort of preference. Is it that the three sentences contained on those three lines are in itself support/evidence for the backing of the alternative theory?

Also, could we view the first paragraph as being structured as having a classic LR stimulus of "Some neurobiologists once believed theory A... but now there is theory B which further builds on and changes that initial extrapolation"? With this structure, the author's view is always placed on the new or alternative suggestion. Is this a way, for this particular passage, to figure out the author's pov?

Thank you!

[tommywallach]

Hey Raymond,

Actually the lines I cite go much farther than simple opinion. They state that scientific opinion has 100% accepted the theory. That's not the author's opinion; it's a description of reality.

"convincing" is slightly opinionated, but "researched have gathered enough evidence" is factual. "Gradually won acceptance" is factual. And all the science I cited later is, of course, factual. So it's impossible to read this and believe the theory isn't true.

And yes, I like your point about the first paragraph. I think that's absolutely right. The only danger is in thinking that that first paragraph creates a two-sided argument with that construction, which it doesn't.

Hope that helps a bit!

-t