Below is the link for the article that I introduced in the previous post and below that are the questions and commentary. Please don’t just read the commentary – try to answer the questions for yourself first!!!
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/false-memory-crime?intcid=mod-latest
1) How would you describe the author’s purpose and tone in the passage?
This is a pretty neutral passage where the author is presenting some interesting information, but the author is not really arguing for something. Most of what the author says is through the voice of the experts who he refers to, so that is why I would characterize the tone as fairly neutral, though the author clearly agrees with the position he is presenting and seems disturbed by the evidence (he states, “these are troubling findings.”)
I would probably say that the author’s purpose was to present some troubling findings on the nature of memory as it relates to false confessions. Again, I wouldn’t characterize the purpose as “argue” or anything more emotionally charged because the tone is fairly neutral and the author is not really expressing his opinion explicitly.
2) What kind of evidence does the author use to support his point?
The author refers to historical cases, psychological studies, and some quotations and opinions from psychologists and other experts. This is really the bulk of the article – most of it is devoted to illustrating how it has become increasingly apparent that people can create false memories or be misled into doing so.
3) What does the word malleability mean (in the last paragraph) and what clues does the surrounding context provide in terms of helping you guess the meaning if you didn’t know it?
This is very much like a vocab-in-context question that would appear on the SAT. On a real SAT version of the question, however, there would probably be more concrete contextual clues that would help you determine the meaning than we have here. So its hard in this case to land on an exact understanding of malleability just based on the passage, but there are a few clues. Obviously, the author has a negative view of memory and since the author says, “evidence of the inaccuracy and malleability of human memory” we can infer for sure that it is negative like inaccuracy and also that it can’t mean inaccuracy exactly since that would be redundant. The other clue is that the author says that the evidence has compelled some state supreme courts to view eyewitness testimony as “inherently unreliable.” So we know that the inaccuracy and malleability of memory make testimony that is based on it “unreliable.” Malleable means shapeable or bendable (in the way that a soft metal can be shaped or bent) so although you probably couldn’t arrive at that exact definition based on the context, you can get somewhere close.
4) In the last paragraph the cites some authors who question the accuracy of memory more generally. Do you think the author agrees with their assessment and why?
This is an important question because it gets at something that many readers don’t quite understand: if a passage presents other people’s views and says nothing to contradict them, we have to infer that the author probably agrees. In other words, sometimes a passage will be very neutral and the author will generally just be presenting some information or even the views of another expert. If the author doesn’t suggest that he disagrees then just by virtue of the fact that he is presenting the information unopposed allows us to infer that he agrees with that information. If he didn’t, he would have to say so.
So in the last paragraph of this article, the author really does go a bit further and begins to make a more general point about the unreliability of memory (even when false memories are not being implanted). Even though the author never says that he agrees with the experts that he is quoting in the paragraph, it is safe to infer that he does agree, because why else would he give their opinions without saying anything to oppose them?
Stay tuned for the next installment!!!