Could someone please explain what this issue prompt means?

[clandry]

Claim: Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.

Reason: We are not able to make connections between current events and past events until we have some distance from both.

 

 

I am confused about the reason stated. I have no idea what they mean by "until we have some distance from both."

I'm assuming both means 'present' and 'past,' but how can be have distance from the present? I'm so confused. 

They're basically stating that the past will not help in making decisions today because connections cannot be made between current and past events unless we have some distance from both.

[awells27]

This is one of ETS' quintessential absurd prompts.  In other words, some time from now, however long that is, you'll be able to make connections between the past and "today."  But the prompt did not establish the boundaries circumscribing "today," so it is already absurd.  In some unspecified time period called "today," we still cannot reflect upon the present or assess it in comparison to the past.  So, an example issue might be whether FDR's interventions in the economy could help teach us about the likely success of Obama's attempted interventions in the economy.  The prompt might say that we need more time to assess the weight of Obama's policies.  One arguing against would say that we can already assess the weight of Obama's policies.  If I received this prompt, I might  argue against the prompt but give one paragraph to when it sort of holds up.  

[clandry]

This is one of ETS' quintessential absurd prompts.  In other words, some time from now, however long that is, you'll be able to make connections between the past and "today."  But the prompt did not establish the boundaries circumscribing "today," so it is already absurd.  In some unspecified time period called "today," we still cannot reflect upon the present or assess it in comparison to the past.  So, an example issue might be whether FDR's interventions in the economy could help teach us about the likely success of Obama's attempted interventions in the economy.  The prompt might say that we need more time to assess the weight of Obama's policies.  One arguing against would say that we can already assess the weight of Obama's policies.  If I received this prompt, I might  argue against the prompt but give one paragraph to when it sort of holds up.  

Edited October 27, 2013 by doubled

[clandry]

But seriously, that's ridiculous. I don't even get how the reason has to do with the claim. The claim is saying we can't use the past for contemporary decision-making, but their justification is saying that we can't correlate the current and past until after some unspecified time. How does the reason have anything to do with decision-making tho? It seems the reason is just saying we can't connect the present and past presently, so to speak, as we do not have sufficient time to judge, but it seems completely irrelevant to decision making. 

 

 

Thanks for the explanation by the way. I sincerely hope I do not receive this prompt. 

[awells27]

You're expecting the GRE to make sense?

[Censorry]

Oh I think it means this:

 

you can never distance yourself from the present, however, you can distance yourself from two points in the past and make a connection between them.

 

For example in 2020

 

you will be distant from both 2000 and 2010, therefore - according to the absurd logic of the GRE question - you will be able to understand how 2000 influenced your decisions in 2010.

So this means you can never connect the past and the present, you can only connect two points in the past, since then you will have distanced yourself from both points.

 

__________2000_______2010________present (you making the connection between 2000&2010)

 

__________2010_______present______future (you will be able to make the connection between your old present which has now become your past and 2010)

 

 

 

I don't agree by the way.