Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [119]
Excerpt from “Hypotheses about Rev Function”
Two major hypotheses for Rev function have been proposed. One is that Rev may inhibit splicing or interfere with the assembly of the spliceosome. This hypothesis would imply that inhibiting spliceosome activity would release pre-mRNA for transport to the cytoplasm (Fischer et al. 1995). The other hypothesis is that Rev might directly target viral pre-mRNA to the cytoplasm through the interaction of its domains with cellular cofactors. [States hypotheses and their implications] While there is evidence to support both models, there seems to be stronger support in favor of the second hypothesis. The finding that functional inactivation of the Rev activation domain always resulted in the inability of the protein to exit the nucleus provides significant evidence that the activation domain is a nuclear export signal (NES) and Rev is indeed actively involved in the direct transport of viral mRNAs (Meyer et al. 1996). [Offers as rationale for preferred hypothesis that it better explains evidence] Additionally, Rev was able to directly promote nuclear export of RRE-containing mRNAs after nuclear injection into Xenopus oocytes independently of the presence of introns in these RNAs and thus presumably in the absence of spliceosome formation (Fischer et al. 1994). [Adds additional evidence from second source to support preferred hypothesis]
USING AUTHORITIES AS EVIDENCE
A common way of establishing support for a claim is to invoke an authority—to call in as evidence the thinking of an expert in the subject area you are writing about. The practice of invoking authorities as evidence can be heard in TV advertising (“three out of four doctors recommend…,” etc.) as well as in scholarly books and articles, where a writer may offer as partial support for a claim the thinking of a better-known writer. Much academic writing consists of evaluating and revising views that people have come to believe are authoritative. The building of knowledge involves in large part the ongoing consideration of who or what will be accepted as authoritative.
Later in this unit of the book, we offer a whole chapter on the matter of using authorities as evidence (Chapter 13, Using Sources Analytically: The Conversation Model). In that chapter, we explain how to use—rather than just include and agree with—other writers on your subject. In the meantime, we offer the following passage from a student paper on ancient art. In it, you will see how the writer calls on the authority of his sources, putting them into evidence for his case, but also how he offers alternatives to their claims on the basis of his own review of the primary evidence (the art objects themselves).
Note that he does not simply import his sources’ claims but their evidence as well. Calling in the support of an authority, an expert witness, can be very useful, but it’s no substitute for logic: the fact that somebody has gotten a claim printed doesn’t mean it’s a good conclusion. Sharing the source’s evidence and reasoning with your readers will help them to understand your use of the source.
Notice as well how the writer is refereeing a range of possible interpretations by juxtaposing the ways that different experts theorize the significance of empirical evidence—such as their all having ears and all being naked females. (As noted earlier, the word “empirical” means capable of being observed, available to the senses; the word comes from the Greek word for experience.)
The paper from which we took the following excerpt is a study of a group of white marble statues from the Cycladic Islands in the Aegean Sea. Designated as part of the “Early Spedos” stylistic group, the statues date from 2700–2500 B.C. After a careful description of the figures themselves, the writer uses a blend of his own analysis and theories by art history authorities to speculate about the significance of the figures.
Excerpt from “Early Spedos Cycladic Idols”
The function of the figurines is still unclear; there is no specific accepted doctrine