DISCUSSION: You might think that the point of the passage is to compare two theories of mirrors. But the field-of-sight theory is only mentioned to establish that we have a pretty good explanation of mirrors. After the first paragraph, the field-of-sight theory is not mentioned again.
Instead, the rest of the passage discussed the front-to-back theory. The main point of the passage is that the front-to-back theory is not satisfactory. This is because it doesn’t consider what happens when we look into mirrors (lines 48-54).
- The passage doesn’t give any evidence against the field-of-sight theory. It appears the author agrees that this theory is correct.
- This is a tempting answer, but the front-to-back theory is not based on empirical evidence. We use our mental constructs to imagine the front-to-back theory (lines 28-32), but these constructs are contrary to fact (lines 34-36). The front-to-back explanation is based on a false idea.
- Lines 48-51 did mention two necessary conditions for an explanation of mirrors, but this is not the same as listing difficulties that need to be overcome. A difficulty is a specific obstacle that needs to be removed, for instance “we need to construct a physically perfect mirror” or “we need to figure out a way to measure light entering a mirror”.
- CORRECT. Paragraphs 2-4 are dedicated to showing why the front-to-back theory is inadequate. See the passage analysis section and the discussion above for more details.
- The passage does explain why the front-to-back theory is accepted. But it is not because of theoretical support. Instead, the front-to-back theory receives support for two reasons:
1. The front-to-back explanation seems natural to us, due to the way we imagine mirrors (lines 26-32)
2. Scientists like to separate the observer from the phenomenon (lines 42-45)
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly