- [Instructor] Based on the
information in the passage, it can be inferred that
the author holds which one of the following views? Okay, so this is an inference question. This isn't about what's in the passage or summing up what a section
of the passage is there for, what it's purpose or function is. This is about trying to figure out what the author is thinking. We can't really predict
this, we know that the author is really celebrating the fact that, celebrating's too strong of a word, but it's definitely positive about Cecelia Payne's contribution to this area, of the discovery of
what the sun is made of and that she was kind of an unsung hero of that time in research. Her colleagues didn't believe
her, for whatever reason. But it's generally positive,
so with views questions, it helps to kind of have a sense you're looking for something,
you know, positive. Let's start looking at the choices. The fact that Payne's research
findings were not found convincing by many of her
contemporaries was not due to any major mistake in her
scientific reasoning. That sounds pretty good,
let's see the others. Previous to Payne, interpreters
of the spectroscopic data had deliberately
disregarded data that suggested the sun contained some hydrogen. No, this is really negative, the author doesn't hold any
really kind of negative views about anybody, it's
just stating the facts. We don't know that there
is criminal negligence or criminal intent, so B is not right. The "iron" hypothesis would
not have been accepted for so long were it not for the prominence and prestige of Lord Kelvin. Again, I don't know, Lord
Kelvin was mentioned, but there's no, the author
seems pretty agnostic about "Oh, you know, it
was his fault, you know, "it was his prominence and
prestige that made everybody "accept the 'iron' hypothesis." That's really a bridge too far, that would be using our
imagination too much and there's no reason
for us to think that. D, the resistance to her
findings that Payne encountered among professional astronomers
is uncharacteristic of the way science generally operates. Again, if this question,
if this choice were right, it would be, you know, something
about the author feeling, you know, having made
a statement of, like, "that isn't the way science usually is." There are no statements
along those lines, you know, in the entire passage,
so that's not the answer. E, the discovery of nuclear
fusion might have been delayed by several decades if Payne
had not determined that the sun consists mainly
of hydrogen and helium. And, again, we don't know that,
you know, the author thinks "Oh, it would've been delayed,
you know, we credit Payne "with finally the timeline
on which nuclear fusion "was finally discovered
and accepted as a thing." This is not in the passage. So, we have pretty good
grounds to go with A here. Let's look at it again. The fact that Payne's research findings were not found convincing, okay, we definitely know that
the passage is about that, by many of her
contemporaries was not due to any major mistake in her
scientific reasoning. Okay, so for this to be
right, all we need to know is that the author thinks
"yeah she was right all along." There is no mistake, so
here's our answer, A.