4

I read a pdf file and try to answer it. At the end of the article there are answers of the questions. I have question, (I feel something strange, the answer at end of file, not match with my answer). So I need your suggestion.

This is the article:

enter image description here

The options:

enter image description here

My guess, is "D". Since there is no sentence describe that mindano is in southern of Philipines.

But the answer typed at the file is E. The title of the article typed "Quake Rocks Southern Philippines"

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
toha
  • 225
  • 2
  • 5
  • 11
  • 4
    Worse: A is not true. There may be damage that has not yet been reported (or will never be). The epicenter was at sea, not under it (I guess it depends on your definition. But the boat at the surface is also "the epicenter"). IAC, as a native speaker I feel that the issues with this question is not with your comprehension of the writing. – JDługosz May 17 '16 at 07:50

3 Answers3

10

It seems to me that all the statements are true according to the article.

(a) The first sentence says, "there were no reports of casualties or destruction".

(b) Third sentence: "the quake was felt in various cities in Mindanao"

(c) Second sentence: "The undersea quake ..."

(d) First sentence says "struck the southern Phillipines", and the third sentence says "felt in ... Mindanao". Also The second sentence says that General Santos is a "southern city" and that it is on the island of Mindanao.

(e) The title says, "Quake rocks southern Phillipines".

If anything, I would have said that (c) was the most questionable as nothing says that the EPICENTER was under the sea, it just refers to it as an "undersea earthquake". Arguably the epicenter could have been on land but the force carried under the sea.

I don't know how they come up with (e) as not true. It's possible that as User170461 says, whoever wrote the answer key was thinking that the earthquake rocked only the southern Phillipines and not the whole Phillipines. But as the answer selection doesn't say "all" or "whole", I don't think that's valid. If someone said, "Maine Mendoza lives in the Phillipines", I wouldn't understand that to mean that she lives in every city and on every island of the Phillipines, just somewhere in there. Or perhaps more comparable, if I read, "There was a terrorist attack in France", I wouldn't understand that to mean that terrorists fired bullets into every square inch of France, but simply that there was a terrorist attack somewhere in that country. In any case, if that's the reasoning, than by the same reasoning (b) is false, because the article very clearly does NOT say that the quake was felt in all of Mindanao, but only in "various cities" in Mindanao.

If this was a test and the prof marked me wrong, I'd be complaining about the question.

Jay
  • 65,313
  • 1
  • 69
  • 142
  • So do I. I do complain about the question, so I post it here.. But Your analytics are so good.. – toha May 17 '16 at 06:58
  • I think "undersea quake" is enough to indicate that the epicentre was under the sea. (Even without the additional fact that the quake "struck...96 kilometres south east of ... General Santos" - which happens to be a point off the coast of the island. Although in a textual analysis we shouldn't be expected to know how close to the coast General Santos is unless the article tells us.) – nnnnnn May 17 '16 at 07:11
  • 1
    I think "A" is the most questionable. How can you conclude that there were no victims or destruction from the lack of reports of injuries or damage? Also, "E" is a poor answer. If you rock part of something, you can accurately be said to have rocked that thing. I know of no logical or linguistic requirement that you must rock all of something to have rocked it. Would you say you haven't rocked a rocking chair unless you've rocked its base? That seems bizarre. – David Schwartz May 17 '16 at 09:22
  • @nnnnnn the epicentre of an earthquake is the point on the surface directly above the centre of the earthquake. The epicentre cannot be under the sea. – nekomatic May 17 '16 at 09:34
  • 2
    @nekomatic Why not? In Wiki:Submarine earthquake the epicenter is linked to the sea floor. (And surface of the Earth can be different to surface of the covering water body.) – Erbureth May 17 '16 at 10:32
  • @David Schwartz I agree. The first paragraph says that the USGS received no reports of damage, but the thirds states that there was no major damage. – Michael J. May 17 '16 at 11:53
  • @nekomatic - So what is the centre point of an undersea earthquake called? Or are you saying the epicentre would be on the water's surface and not the sea floor? – nnnnnn May 17 '16 at 12:18
  • The epicenter, epicentre /ˈɛpɪsɛntər/ or epicentrum is the point on the Earth's surface that is directly above the hypocenter or focus, the point where an earthquake or underground explosion originates. Consult any dictionary. i.e The 'focus' is under the sea, but the epicenter is on the sea. – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 12:43
  • 1
    @nnnnnn I assumed you were following the common confusion of 'epicentre' = centre, apologies if I spoke too soon. I can't readily find a definitive answer as to whether the epicentre is considered to be on the sea bed or on the water surface. – nekomatic May 17 '16 at 12:54
  • 1
    -1 I think the sentence about General Santos is meant to say it is a southern city on Mindanao not a southern city of the Philippines. Anyway, this doesn't invalidate D as actually being true. But mainly: if an island of the Hawaiian Islands was rocked by an earthquake, it's hard to extrapolate that and say the US was rocked by an earthquake. Thus, E is the least worst answer of a terribly written exam question, but what else is new? – Alan Carmack May 17 '16 at 13:16
  • @user6170930 - Definitions of epicentre usually say "earth's surface". The "earth's surface" is frequently defined in a way that includes the seabed rather than the water's surface. Also from Wikipedia: "About 70.8% of the surface is covered by water, with much of the continental shelf below sea level...The submerged surface has..." – nnnnnn May 17 '16 at 13:24
  • They're not making a distinction. The emphasis was mine. The part I didn't include is just talking about the undersea mountains and stuff. – nnnnnn May 17 '16 at 13:30
  • @nnnnnn If you are in an aeroplane flying over the ocean and you want to know your altitude, you quote your distance above the earths surface (i.e altitude) in terms of MSL (mean sea level). – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 13:33
  • @user6170930 Okay, but when you start getting into technicalities of a definition, nothing says that the precise technical meaning given to a word by airplane pilots is the same as the meaning given by seismologists. A seismologist's definition of "focus" is certainly not the same as a photographer's definition. A pilot is vitally interested in height above sea level because a negative number here is a very bad thing, and less dramatically because it relates to air density. A pilot would not normally care about the distance to the ocean floor. – Jay May 18 '16 at 01:56
  • @user6170930 I am saying that technicalities like this from an aeronautical definition are not really relevant when discussing a seismological definition. Whether the definitions are the same or not is not "convenient for [my] argument" because I am not making any argument about what the seismological definition might be. I don't know. – Jay May 18 '16 at 03:39
  • I just spent more time than it's worth to me searching for whether seismologists say an epicenter is "surface of the water" or "surface of the seabed". Didn't find a clear definition, but: Los Angeles Times article, title is "Underwater Epicenter Complicates Scientists' Studies of Earthquake" (http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-14/news/mn-19241_1_san-andreas-fault). And a Fox 40 story says, "now geologists have pinpointed the epicenter of Sunday's earthquake, which is actually underwater". (http://fox40.com/2014/08/28/geologists-locate-epicenter-of-napa-earthquake/) – Jay May 18 '16 at 04:10
  • ... News reporters aren't generally known for getting details right when reporting on science, but I also found this sentence in an abstract of a technical seismology article: "The initial location reported by the SSN and IRIS suggested that the epicenter was on the North American plate near a fault that is considered inactive." Note "on the plate", not "above the plate". (Seismological Research Letters Volume 81, Number 2 March/April 2010, page 374) I'd tentatively conclude that seismologists say an epicenter is on the seabed and not the surface of the water. – Jay May 18 '16 at 04:14
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Jay May 18 '16 at 14:04
3

In the introductory part, it says "Philippines: A 5,3-magnitute earthquake struck the southern Philippines on Thursday........", and everything below that is explaining the details about the earthquake that occurred in the Southern Philippines, so even though there is no clear description which says that Mindanao is in the southern Philippines, since those details are about the earthquake in the southern Philippins, and there is a description which says "... around 96 kilometers south east of the southern city of General Santos on the island of Mindanao" which probably is telling you that it is located in the southern Philippines, I think. And the reason why E is not true is because the quake rocked only the southern part of the Philippines and not the entire Philippines...?

Mikiko
  • 854
  • 7
  • 15
  • 6
    Seems like a trick question, if that's the correct answer. I think using the country name doesn't imply the sentence applies to every single region. – Senjougahara Hitagi May 17 '16 at 04:52
  • 1
    @SenjougaharaHitagi I was still reading that article because I wasn't 100% sure, and I started to think the reason I wrote in my answer for the fact that Mindanao is on the southern part is not just because it's in the explanation part, but because it says in the second sentence, around 96 kilometers south east of the southern city of General Santos on the island of Mindanao. – Mikiko May 17 '16 at 04:56
  • I just didn't make sense there in the second line. What I wanted to write is, "The reason I wrote in my answer for the fact that Mindanao is on the southern part is wrong and not just because...." – Mikiko May 17 '16 at 05:00
  • Is it possible to un-accept my answer? Did you read the other answer by Jay? It sounds more legit. – Mikiko May 17 '16 at 06:55
  • Both of the answers is good. I am confused a lil to decide who to given the accepted answer.. I have marked Jay's answer as accepted answer, but I saw your answer un-accepted, so I accept back your answer since you are the first one who give the smart clue. – toha May 17 '16 at 07:02
  • 1
    +1 The article says the quake struck the southern Philippines. Everything it says about the location of the quake is in relation to Mindanao. If Mindanao is not in the southern Philippines then that's rather odd. Of course, the "exam questions" are not the best, but that describes most exam questions posted here. E is technically true, since the Philippines was rocked by an earthquake in its southern portion. But E is the "least worst" answer. – Alan Carmack May 17 '16 at 13:02
  • But, since if you look on a map you can see that Mindanao basically is the southern Philippines, you can differentiate Mindanao from the rest of the Philippines. And if I say Hawaii or one of its islands was was rocked by an earthquake, it's hard to equate that with the United States was rocked by an earthquake. – Alan Carmack May 17 '16 at 13:07
0

E. The quake rocked Philippines.

This is not a grammatical sentence. It should read: The quake rocked the Philippines.

If the quake rocked the southern Philippines then there is a strong implication that it did not in fact rock the whole Philippines. This makes option E wrong on two counts.

As for option D, since the quake rocked the southern Philippines and was felt in Mindano then the only logical conclusion is that Minando is in the southern Philippines. So D is definitely not the answer. Ask yourself what it was that was 'felt' if not the rocking.

I asked about the precise definition of epicenter here and it turns out that Jay's intuition that it is in terms of the sea bed is in fact correct. So there is no issue with option C. My apologies Jay.

Community
  • 1
Niall Cosgrove
  • 117
  • 5
  • A quake can rock one place and be felt hundreds of miles away. But I agree that D is not the intended answer. – Alan Carmack May 17 '16 at 13:15
  • If you feel it then you are being rocked ;) – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 13:20
  • RE not a grammatically correct sentence: That's true, but the question doesn't ask which option is not grammatically correct, but which is false. If someone said "France are in Europe", that statement is grammatically incorrect, but I certainly would not say that makes it false. In both cases, the intended meaning is still clear. If that's what the test writer was thinking, it's a muddled question. – Jay May 17 '16 at 13:47
  • @Jay I agree its a muddled question, but I will say that in general given a malconstructed sentence it is always impossible to assert its truth. – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 13:54
  • @jay "France are in Europe" might be interpreted as "The French are in Europe" or "France is in Europe" but there is also the implication that there is more than one France all of which are in Europe. The sentence is malformed and therefore neither True nor False. – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 14:21
  • Since "E" doesn't say the quake rocked the whole Phillippines, it doesn't matter whether or not the quake rocked the whole Phillipines. If I say "Jeff rocked my rocking chair", that doesn't mean he rocked the entire rocking chair. – David Schwartz May 17 '16 at 15:51
  • @DavidSchwartz What is the object in the sentence "Jeff rocked my rocking chair"?. It is 'chair' obviously. If you wish to refer to part of the rocking chair you need to do so explicitly. So your example means the whole chair always. There is no room for interpretation there. 'Rocked' is the verb, 'chair is the object', the assertion is that the 'chair' is 'rocked' - never part of it, given the construction of the sentence you supplied. – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 16:05
  • @user6170930 You can say "I broke my leg" even if you only broke one part of one bone in your leg. You do not have to specify what part of what bone broke. You can say that a movie "stunned the French" with no fear that you've implied that all things French have been stunned. – David Schwartz May 17 '16 at 16:13
  • @DavidSchwartz Your 'leg' example is correct since breaking part of an object can render the whole object non-functional. Your movie example is imprecise, but commonly used. I am losing track of your greater argument here. C contains a scientific mistruth, E is a malformed sentence, but D is certainly true. Do you not agree? – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 16:26
  • For the onlookers wishing to be educated - Davids' movie example above is a Metonymy. i.e. a figure of speech in which a thing is called not by its own name but rather by the name of something associated in meaning with that thing. If you use a part of a thing to refer to the whole then you have a synecdoche. His example uses 'the French' when clearly it means 'a number of French people' – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 16:45
  • @user6170930 Can a malformed sentence be true? – David Schwartz May 17 '16 at 17:19
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Niall Cosgrove May 17 '16 at 17:20