4 ms·
> This is confusing, because one possible reading of this is that the procedure works only on Black people. Thats not a reasonable interpretation. They're jus
by andyjohnson0 3y ago
> This is confusing, because one possible reading of this is that the procedure works only on Black people.
Thats not a reasonable interpretation.
They're just saying that the recipient is a member of a group with higher rates of kidney disease, and therefore the transpant techniques may particularly (but not solely) benefit that group.
The rest of your comment is unnecessary supposition.
- martinky24 3y agoDude is just looking for a culture war.
- stakhanov 3y ago[flagged]
- pdabbadabba 3y agoWhat it is very clearly saying is this: > The patient is a Black man, and the procedure may have special significance for Black patients [because they] suffer high rates of end-stage kidney disease. I grant you that the grammar of the sentence does leave a smidgen of ambiguity. But I don't see any other plausible reading if you bring even a little bit of context to the interpretive exercise--which is just as much a part of reading as understanding the syntax. The author is justified in expecting that good faith readers will understand the final clause as explaining the clause that goes immediately before it. It's also a huge and unreasonable leap to go from "this sentence has a slight ambiguity" to "the sentence can be reasonably interpreted to mean that the procedure only works on black people." It can't.
- pvg 3y agoSyntactically, yes it is That's a very tenuous reason to try to start a dumb tangential flamewar.
- stakhanov 3y agoI'm saying that, even on a grammatical level, it's visible that the author must have had a motive for putting the sentence there that was somehow extraneous to and different from the motive for putting the other sentences there. Noticing that sort of thing is a useful skill in the critical reception of media. That's why I pointed it out.