DISCUSSION: The front-to-back explanation is the opposing explanation mentioned in paragraphs 2-4.
The author does not accept this theory. Lines 26-28 say that it is successful “to a point”. Right away we can narrow things down to D or E.
In the passage analysis section I highlighted words that indicated the author’s opinion, such as “however”. Those words are crucial to the argument, and to answering this question.
- The author only thinks the front-to-back explanation is successful “to a point”. See the analysis above.
- Same as A.
- Same as A and B.
- It is not a bad thing to be consistent with previous theories. You may know that from common sense. In any case the author does not say consistency is a bad thing.
- CORRECT. The front-to-back theory does not offer an explanation of mirrors based on the observer. It treats the objects in mirrors as real, which is false (21-25). Lines 48-54 say that any good theory of mirrors must consider what happens when an observer looks in.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly