DISCUSSION: The author appears to think that the field-of-sight theory is correct. It’s discussed in the first paragraph. If you reread that paragraph, you’ll find not one criticism of the theory.
The field-of-sight theory is only mentioned in order to provide a contrast to the front-to-back theory. The author argues that the front-to-back theory is wrong. Presumably the field-of-sight theory does not share any of those errors. Otherwise the author would have said so. From the descriptions of the two theories, they seem very different.
- The only traditional desire is the one mentioned in lines 42-45: scientists want to separate observer and phenomenon. There’s no mention of a traditional desire to simplify explanations.
- CORRECT. Lines 21-25 show that the front-to-back theory is based on the false idea that mirror objects are 3-d. Since the author does not say the same thing about the field-of-sight theory, we can assume the field-of-sight theory does not make such an assumption. From the description in paragraph one, the left-to-right reversal in the field-of-sight theory doesn’t depend on the belief that the mirror image is 3-d.
- The front-to-back theory does not take into account what an observer sees (see the final paragraph). But this question is talking about the field-of-sight theory.
- The field-of-sight theory is only mentioned in the first paragraph, and the first paragraph doesn’t say that people fail to understand the reality of mirrors.
- The field-of-sight theory is only mentioned in the first paragraph. The author appears to approve of it. They never say it is incorrect or unsuccessful.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly