jen6 wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why TRIFLING is the answer.
Here's how I'm struggling - if evidence is incomplete/missing, then why would these gaps be important?
I am not an expert at all, so please ignore if you do not need anything from non-expert.
I selected A for (1) , but only thing I thought was I cannot say neither "The gaps" is "not obvious"= may be a little bit obscure nor "not implicit" = may be explicit some extent as there is no info in this question to back up those options, b and c. If we determine as b or c, we need more info about "The gaps" in this question.
In other words, b and c are quite opposite meaning, but nature that it will need more justifications to be selected is almost same to me.
Only thing we are given is The gaps are in existing accounts because of something in evidence, but not anymore.
I picked trifling just because I thought if gaps are there and they are caused by incompleteness of evidence, I though it may be somewhat worth for considering /may include some values.
For example, let's imagine that we need to propose new theory /accounts on this matter, and if there are 3 existing accounts A,B,C which cause the gaps, 3C2 , 3x2/2x1. = 3 patterns.
A-B (or B-A)
A-C (or C-A)
B-C (or C-B)
In researching, this might be good idea to investigate those gaps at first to create a new hypothesis , just for example, if A and B have same view for certain items even they are individually having gaps to C, we may want to make a a hypothesis that commonality in A and B is good place to create a hypothesis. (In this case there should be gaps between A and B in other items.)
I am new to this site, so please educate me if I have better way to reply.