ShmoopTube

00:04

Here's your Shmoop du jour, brought to you by

00:05

gross negligence. It NEVER covers its face when it sneezes.

00:41

Based on its context in the passage, which of the following would be the best definition

00:45

for the verb "to obfuscate" <<OB-fiss-cate>> in line 13?

00:53

When an ACT question references a specific line, it's in our best interest to go back

00:57

and check out what that line has to say.

01:00

So from the context, we can tell that the ATSDR tried to hide their screw-ups when it

01:05

came to those formaldehyde-ridden FEMA trailers.

01:08

As we're going through the answer choices, we have to decide which potential definition

01:12

of "obfuscate" best matches this idea.

01:16

(C) is a freebie. People who have something to hide don't usually go around...revealing

01:20

stuff.

01:21

(C) is more like obfuscate's antonym...which means its opposite, not its parent's sister.?

01:26

Answer (B) doesn't seem totally out of context. People do lie when they're trying to hide

01:31

something they've done wrong.

01:33

The report doesn't exactly claim that the ATSDR went so far as to outright lie, though,

01:38

so we can get rid of (B).

01:40

Choice (D) isn't totally outside of the realm of possibility. Destroying evidence

01:43

is a classic way of trying to get away with something you've done.

01:46

However, line 13 doesn't say that the ATSDR did this specifically, so we have to say no

01:51

to answer (D).

01:52

(A) is the best answer. The author claims that the ATSDR did their best to "obfuscate,"...or

01:57

make their failures unclear to the investigators.

02:00

They probably would have loved to have Obi Wan around to pull a Jedi mind trick...

Full Transcript