Self-study
P1
Physicists are often asked why the image of an object, such as a chair, appears reversed left-to-right rather than, say, top-to-bottom when viewed in a mirror. ███
Phenomenon / Question ·
Mirrors only flip images left-to-right. Why not also top-to-bottom?
Field-of-sight Hypothesis / Answer ·
Something about the axis around which the viewer rotates
No idea what this means. Please god let this not matter.
P2
████████ ████ ██████████ █████ █ ██████████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ██████████████ ██ ██ █████ █ █████ ██ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███
Front-to-back Hypothesis / Answer ·
Mirrors actually reverse the image front-to-back
As if there's another object "inside" the mirror
Critique ·
Of front-to-back hypothesis
Hypothesis is based on a false premise. There's no object inside the mirror.
P3
████ ███████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ █ ██████ █████████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ █ ██████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █ ███████████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ████
Concession ·
Front-to-back hypothesis has some explanatory power
We usually transform our sense perception into mental constructs of objects. This is why this hypothesis is appealing.
P4
██ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ████████ █ █████ ██ ███████ ███
Motivations ·
Of front-to-back hypothesis
Wants to separate the observer from the phenomenon.
Main Point / Critique ·
Of front-to-back hypothesis
The real explanation of what mirrors do must consider both the mirror and the observer. So, like the field-of-sight explanation?
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)
24.
In the passage the author ██ █████████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
evaluating the experimental ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███████ ████████████ ██ █ █████ ██████████
There author doesn’t evaluate experimental evidence in this passage. She merely evaluates the theoretical bases for the explanations; we don’t get any discussion of concrete experiments or data. Since (A) doesn’t occur, it can’t be the primary purpose.
b
demonstrating that different ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████████████
This doesn’t capture the author’s critique of the front-to-back explanation. (B) is too neutral.
c
describing the difficulties ████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █ ████████████ ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ██ ██ █████
Although the author does describe what’s required in order for an adequate explanation of mirrors, she never suggests that these requirements are difficult to achieve or are things to be overcome. In fact, the field-of-sight explanation already meets the requirements.
d
showing why one ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████
This best captures the primary purpose, which is to criticize the front-to-back explanation. After describing the front-to-back explanation and why it’s intuitively appealing, the author implies that it is not a successful explanation because it doesn’t consider what happens when people look into mirrors.
e
relating the theoretical ███████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████████
This doesn’t capture the author’s critique of the front-to-back explanation. (E) is too neutral. It may capture part of the author’s purpose in P3, but it doesn’t capture the author’s criticism in P4.