MCAT Textbooks / MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023 / Ch 8 of 12

📖 Question and Answer Strategy

12,123 words · 1 figures · ≈53 min read · MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023

Chapter 8: Question and Answer Strategy

Chapter 8

Chapter 8. Question and Answer Strategy

Chapter 8: Question and Answer Strategy

Chapter 8: Question and Answer Strategy

Chapter 8

Chapter 8, Question and Answer Strategy

In This Chapter

8.1The Kaplan Method for CARS Questions

Type

Rephrase

Investigate

Match

8.2Wrong Answer Pathologies

Faulty Use of Detail (FUD)

Out of Scope (OS)

Opposite (OPP)

Distortion (DIST)

8.3Signs of a Healthy Answer

Appropriate Scope

Author Agreement

Synonymous Phrasing

Weaker Is Usually Better

Concept and Strategy Summary

Introduction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After Chapter 8, you will be able to:

Thus far, this book has examined the multifarious aspects of Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills (CARS) passages. You’ve learned about their rhetorical and logical characteristics in Chapter 3. You’ve seen how to approach them with thoughtful Previewing in Chapter 4 and Reading in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 built on these foundations and focused on Distilling the meaning of the passage. Finally in Chapter 7, these threads were brought together as we discussed the Kaplan CARS Passage Strategy.

Now, we turn to question stems and answer choices. We’ll start by outlining the Kaplan Method for CARS Questions. Subsequently, we’ll look at the recurring traps that the test makers set for the unwary student, which we call Wrong Answer Pathologies. In the final portion, we’ll consider the counterpart to pathologies: patterns common in correct answers.

8.1 The Kaplan Method for CARS Questions

In Chapter 7 of MCAT CARS Review, we introduced the Kaplan Method for CARS Passages and explored the ways in which it can be applied to a variety of passage types. In this section, we’ll introduce the Kaplan CARS question method, which takes the basic form shown in Figure 8.1.

TYPE THE QUESTION

REPHRASE THE STEM

INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

MATCH YOUR PREDICTION TO AN ANSWER CHOICE

Figure 8.1 The Kaplan Method for CARS Questions

Note: The Kaplan Method for CARS Questions, as well as the Kaplan Method for CARS Passages, CARS Question Types, and Wrong Answer Pathologies, are included as tear-out sheets in the back of this book.

Type

You might notice that the first step of the question method is similar to the Preview step of the Kaplan Method for CARS Passages. This is not a coincidence, but rather a consequence of the timing constraints posed by the MCAT. Every question is worth the same number of points, which means you want to avoid being derailed by any given question. It is important to approach the MCAT by being realistic about the nature of the exam: at least one or two questions within each section are so difficult that you’re likely to get them wrong no matter how many minutes you spend on them. Though it may be tempting to spend a long time on a challenging question, it is better to recognize which questions those are right away, so you can instead use that time to gain more points by answering a larger number of more straightforward questions.

To that end, your first task with any question will be to read the stem, and only the stem, for the sake of deciding either to work on it now or to triage (to use an apt medical metaphor) and save it for later in the passage. In Chapter 4, we discussed the variety of factors used to assess the difficulty of passages during the Preview step of the Kaplan CARS Passage Method. For questions, however, difficulty is best assessed by identifying the question type. Because question type is the main variable to be focused on, this step of the Question Method is referred to as the Type step. The three broad categories of question that the AAMC presents in CARS were introduced in Chapter 1, and these categories can be further separated into more granular question types. Almost all Foundations of Comprehension questions fall into one of four types, while Reasoning Within the Text and Reasoning Beyond the Text categories can each be split into two predominant types, along with a handful of other types that only appear rarely. All of these question types are discussed in greater depth in Chapters 9–11. Starting each question with the Type step not only allows for proper assessment of difficulty but also makes Rephrasing and Investigating a question much easier. We will discuss how question type indicates difficulty and how to apply the Type step most effectively to each question type in Chapters 9–11.

REAL WORLD

Think of question typing as equivalent to diagnosing a question. In medical school, you will learn the appropriate steps to undertake if a patient presents with chest pain, abdominal pain, a severe headache, confusion, and so on. The ten question types should be thought of as the “presentation” of the question, which determines the appropriate steps to take through the rest of the Kaplan Method for CARS Questions.

Why avoid looking at the answer choices when determining question difficulty? The primary reason is that most of them are wrong. If you glance at just one of them, for instance, it’s three times more likely to be incorrect than correct and could seriously mislead you about the question. Inexperienced test takers immediately jump to the answers, and the AAMC punishes them for it by wording wrong options seductively. Selecting the first answer that looks good without first thinking through the question itself is a recipe for failure. Thus, in the next steps, Rephrase and Investigate, we will cover how to think through the question before jumping to the answer choices in the Match step.

MCAT EXPERTISE

To avoid getting seduced by wrong answer choices, cover all answer choices with your hand or your noteboard without touching the screen; leave them out of your field of view until you’re ready for them in the Match step. Reading the answer choices can lead to the misinformation effect, discussed in Chapter 3 of MCAT Behavioral Sciences Review.

Rephrase

Once you have decided to attack a question, it’s time to rephrase it. The Rephrase step goes beyond simply restating the question stem. The purpose of the Rephrase step is to provide you with a clear task and direction that you can use to attack the question. To this end, rephrase the question stem, focusing on the task itself and any relevant context given in the stem, to clearly identify what the question is demanding of you. Simpler question types like Main Idea and Definition-in-Context always involve one specific task (recognizing the big picture and explaining the meaning of part of the text as used in the passage, respectively). Even the most complex question types will have one major task to accomplish, though it may involve multiple steps. For example, almost all questions of the Apply type involve one of three tasks: gauging the author’s response, predicting a likely outcome, or finding a good example (as described in Chapter 11 of MCAT CARS Review). Even if you feel you understand the task as phrased in the original question stem, the Rephrase step is an important check to ensure that you have fully read the question and know what you have to do to answer it. One of the most common causes of missed questions in the CARS section is misreading of question stems; taking the additional time to Rephrase will earn you valuable points on Test Day.

MCAT EXPERTISE

Rephrasing is a purely mental exercise. You won’t want to waste time writing down a fresh question stem for each question.

If a question stem is too distracting in its current form, consider using the strikethrough or highlight tools in the stem to focus on the most pertinent information.

Sometimes rephrasing is more difficult to accomplish, such as when the task is obscured by unclear language or by extraneous information in the stem. In either of these cases, try working your way backwards, starting with the part of the question directly before the question mark or colon (in a question that requires completing a sentence). Try to simplify the phrasing of that part first, and then connect it to any other relevant information in the stem. If you still struggle to identify the task of the question, consider the question type you found in the Type step, because different instances of the same question type often have similar tasks. Finally, don’t waste time on Test Day writing out the rephrased question; simplifying the question in your head is usually sufficient.

It’s worth pointing out that Rephrasing the stem into a task can be done even without any passage knowledge due to the standardization of CARS questions. Taking notice of common patterns will allow you to devise a plan of attack even if you had difficulty with the passage itself. This skill of Rephrasing will require practice to master, but it’s worth it. To help you master this step, here are some example question stems from the passage at the end of the chapter, along with sample rephrasing and identification of the task:

The author mentions Knorozov in the third paragraph in order to:

Which of the following would most call into question the author’s argument about the complexity of Mayan writing?

The author of the passage would be LEAST likely to agree with which of the following?

Notice that the rephrased question stems are fairly similar to the original wordings. This is often the case, particularly for more straightforward questions. The simplest question stems may not even require a Rephrase: if the task is clearly stated in the stem without extraneous information, you can move on to the Investigate step. You should not need to simplify the phrasing of each question as part of your Rephrase step, but it is an option if you need to. Notice that the third question stem is simplified by converting the clunky “LEAST likely to agree” to disagree. Other troublesome phrases, such as double negatives, should also be simplified to avoid making careless misreading errors.

MCAT EXPERTISE

If you are unable to Rephrase a question and arrive at a series of actionable steps, review the question types and their tasks in Chapters 9, 10, and 11.

After the Rephrase step you should have a clear understanding of the task(s) to be completed in order to reach the correct answer. How you go about accomplishing those objectives is the focus of the Investigate step.

Investigate

The next step in the question and answer strategy is to Investigate potential solutions using your rephrasing of the question. Specifically, you will follow the directives in your Rephrase to predict what the correct answer should look like. How you use the passage to make this prediction depends on your passage approach (Highlight, Outline, or Interrogate).

Highlighting

A Highlighting approach to the passage should provide the location of important pieces of information and central ideas, but will typically lack details. Thus, the corresponding Investigate step should include rereading specific portions of the passage, as directed by the Rephrase step and the ideas highlighted. Ensure that you are not scanning the entirety of the passage during this step; instead consider the task of the question and your highlighting to determine where you should look. For example, consider the following rephrasing of the second question from above:

MCAT EXPERTISE

Highlighting, Outlining, and Interrogating as approaches to CARS passages are covered in Chapters 6 and 7.

Rephrase: Understand the author’s argument on the complexity of Mayan writing and consider how the answer choices affect that argument.

Investigate: Review what you’ve highlighted to locate where in the passage the complexity of Mayan writing was mentioned, and reread it for deeper understanding in order to form a prediction about what would weaken it.

Outlining

An Outlining approach to the passage should not only note the location of important pieces of information, but also summarize the central ideas of each paragraph. Thus, you should expect your written outline to be sufficient to form predictions for questions that require understanding of the main ideas. However, questions that ask about a specific detail or require inferences from passage information will often require returning to the passage. Again, ensure you are not scanning the entirety of the passage to make your prediction—use your outline to determine where to look. Now, consider the same example from before with outlining:

Rephrase: Understand the author’s argument on the complexity of Mayan writing and consider how the answer choices affect that argument.

Investigate: Review your outline to find the relevant paragraph(s), as well as the conclusion of the argument if you’ve included it. Use that to predict what would weaken the argument or, if that’s insufficient, return to the relevant paragraph(s) and review the argument’s evidence to aid you.

Interrogating

An Interrogating approach to the passage will usually be in-depth enough to leave you with a solid understanding of the central ideas of the passage and their interconnections. As a result, you’ll find you can answer many questions without even referring back to the passage. Of course, a quick double check of the passage is always allowed, but keep in mind that with an Interrogating approach there will not be much time left for passage research during the questions. Let’s look at the same example one more time, now with a mind toward interrogating:

Rephrase: Understand the author’s argument on the complexity of Mayan writing and consider how the answer choices affect that argument.

Investigate: Recall from your interrogation the conclusion of the argument and the type of evidence the author used to support it, and then consider how that argument might be weakened. Use that to make a prediction and only return to the passage if you get stuck.

MCAT EXPERTISE

If you ever find yourself searching the entirety of the passage during your Investigate step, you could be in trouble! When returning to the passage, you should know what you are looking for and its general location in the passage.

If you don’t know where in the passage to look, stop and save the question for later in the passage. It’s likely that while answering the other questions in the passage, you will become more familiar with the passage and may even stumble upon the information you needed. This problem is most likely to occur when using the Highlighting method for the passage, but fortunately this quick approach should leave you with some extra time to investigate the questions.

While investigating your predictions, it’s important to be mindful of how specific or in-depth your prediction should be. Predictions lay along a spectrum from focused to general. Focused predictions should be specific enough to allow you to directly match your prediction to an answer choice. In contrast, general predictions just set broad expectations about what the correct answer should include or exclude. Where your prediction falls on this spectrum primarily depends on the question type and question task. Your mantra for predicting should be predict what you can. Here are some examples:

The author mentions Knorozov in the third paragraph in order to:

Which of the following would most call into question the author’s argument about the complexity of Mayan writing?

The author of the passage would be LEAST likely to agree with which of the following?

Armed with these predictions, you will be better prepared to evaluate the gauntlet of misleading answer choices. But perhaps you’re wondering: why bother with this Investigation step and with making predictions at all? After all, you’ve taken multiple choice tests before that included reading comprehension sections, and perhaps you’ve never needed much strategy to do well on them. Why change when it comes to CARS? There are several reasons why Investigating is key to success in CARS. For one, the CARS section is quite different from postsecondary reading comprehension exams. CARS passages are more likely to be on topics that you lack familiarity with, so you’re less likely to have an intuitive sense of what the answers to questions will be. In addition, the answer choices in the CARS section are designed to lure testers who do not use the passage to answer the question. They often sound like something you read in the passage, or they appeal to outside information that seems right but is irrelevant. Without a thoughtful prediction you are more likely to fall for these alluring yet incorrect answer choices.

An apt analogy would be going to the grocery store hungry and without a shopping list. As many of us have experienced in this very situation, you are more likely to succumb to the influence of professional marketers, which may be peddling unhealthy food choices. If you had a grocery list, you’d be more likely to leave with healthier options and the items you actually require. Plus, you’d likely finish your grocery shopping faster, as you’ll avoid aimlessly walking down the aisles trying to figure out what it was you were intending to bring home.

Finally, what should you do if you can’t locate relevant information in the passage or don’t know where to look? Typically such questions are best to try later, at the very end of a passage set, after you’ve researched the other questions and already reread some of the text. You may find that by the time you return to it, the effort you put into other questions ended up revealing an unhelpful question stem’s correct answer. When you do attempt these questions, a general prediction and process of elimination will usually end up being the best plan. As a final note here, you will always want to return to these questions and at least guess before you leave the passage, since it is more effective in CARS to complete all questions when you work their relevant passages, rather than returning at the very end of the section.

Match

The final step of the question method is to Match your prediction to the correct answer. First evaluate the choices, and if you see an item that closely resembles what you expected, reread every word of that answer choice carefully to make sure it says precisely what you think it does. On the MCAT, correct answers are often vague and use synonyms to phrasings from the passage, rather than quoting the passage phrasing verbatim. This can make finding a match challenging. In addition, rarely will you find a word-for-word match for your prediction. Instead, your best bet is to look for a correspondence between ideas, by searching for a choice that shares a similar meaning with your prediction but uses different words. Once you have found such an answer, select it and move on to the next question. At that point, reading the other choices will not be worth your time—be confident that you’ve answered the question when you find that conceptual match.

MCAT EXPERTISE

If you read a question stem and it doesn’t give you very much to work with, don’t just say I don’t know and jump straight to the answer choices. Take a moment to remember the main themes of the passage and then use those themes to help with the process of elimination. This will help you avoid being distracted by answer choices that are seductive but that do not fit with the passage.

If you aren’t able to find a choice that is synonymous with your prediction, don’t feel that you immediately need to resort to process of elimination (although that is a valid strategy). Part of being flexible is being able to revise your initial prediction; to set new expectations if the answer choices point you in that direction. The answer choices could technically be considered an additional source of information for arriving at the correct answer, but keep in mind that they include a lot of misinformation and so should be treated with caution.

Sometimes the question stem just doesn’t give you very much to work with, and on other occasions you’ll search through the answers for your prediction but find no likely match. In these cases, you will have to use the process of elimination, which may require multiple returns to the text as you research each choice individually. If you were able to set expectations during the Investigate step for wrong choices, however, less additional research will be required. Keep in mind that an answer requires only one major flaw for elimination, so the Wrong Answer Pathologies described in the next section can greatly expedite the process.

MCAT EXPERTISE

Should I compare answer choices? Your default assumption should be that only one answer choice is flawless and that the others contain at least one flaw each, sufficient for ruling them out. However, you may occasionally find questions containing superlatives (strongest challenge, most supported, best example, and so on) in which you need to compare two or more answers that have the same effect but to different degrees. When making such comparisons, don’t assume that an Extreme answer is necessarily wrong, especially if the question stem includes the words if true or similar language. A stronger answer that nevertheless produces the desired outcome would be the correct choice. Thankfully, questions that actually require distinctions of this type are rare.

When all else fails, you can fall back on educated guessing. Eliminate whatever you can and then go with your gut among the remaining options. Never make a blind guess unless you’re completely out of time and need to fill in an answer choice. Even crossing off just one wrong answer will increase your chances of randomly choosing the correct one by 33 percent, while crossing off two doubles your chances. If time allows, try working on any unanswered questions for the passage and see if that effort allows you to return to rule out additional incorrect options.

8.2 Wrong Answer Pathologies

The AAMC has designed the CARS section to be a fair test of critical thinking skills. The focus on fairness is great news for test takers because it means that the questions are not designed to unfairly mislead you. There will never be a question with two correct answer choices or one in which all of the options are wrong. Each question you encounter on Test Day will have one right answer and three that are incorrect for at least one reason. Even better, there are only so many ways an answer can be incorrect; in fact, a few of them are found so frequently that you can treat them like recurring signs and symptoms of answer choice “illness.” Naturally, we call them Wrong Answer Pathologies.

KEY CONCEPT

Wrong Answer Pathologies are the most frequent patterns found in incorrect answer choices. They are so common that you’ll find at least one in just about every CARS question and even in many of the questions in the three science sections!

A choice only needs one fatal flaw to be worth eliminating, but often wrong answer options have many issues, so don’t necessarily be alarmed if you ruled out a wrong answer for a different reason than the one mentioned in a practice question’s explanation. In addition to having some occasional overlap, the following list of pathologies is not meant to be exhaustive; it includes only the four patterns we’ve identified as the most common through researching all of the released MCAT material. In the Kaplan Method for CARS Questions just detailed, pathologies function as recurring expectations for wrong answers, which you can assume fit for most of the questions you encounter (with a few significant departures noted below).

Note: The Wrong Answer Pathologies, as well as the Kaplan Method for CARS Passages, Kaplan Method for CARS Questions, and CARS Question Types, are included as tear-out sheets in the back of this book.

Faulty Use of Detail (FUD)

The test makers will often include accurate reflections of passage details in wrong answers, primarily to appeal to those students who jump at the familiar language. What makes the use of a detail “faulty” is that it simply doesn’t answer the question posed. It may be too specific for a question that requires a general answer, or it may be that the detail comes from the wrong part of the passage. Even if a choice comes from the right paragraph, the detail cited might not be relevant to the question posed, which is often the case in Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) questions. A thorough prediction made in your Investigate step makes catching these FUDs much easier. Remember, the correct answer must be true to the passage and must answer the question!

REAL WORLD

A Faulty Use of Detail answer choice is like a politician who dodges a question during a debate:

Even if the candidate is being honest, the response just doesn’t answer the question posed!

Out of Scope (OS)

With the noteworthy exception of Reasoning Beyond the Text questions (for which this pathology does not usually apply), an answer choice that is outside the scope of the passage will inevitably be wrong. Typically, such answers will be on topic but will bring in some element that the text does not discuss. For instance, if an author never makes comparisons when discussing different ideas, an Out of Scope answer choice might involve the author ranking two or more concepts. Another common OS pattern is the suggestion that an entity or idea was the first of its kind or the most influential, when the author entirely avoids discussing its historical origins or impact. Remember that information that is unstated but strongly suggested (such as assumptions and implications) does not count as Out of Scope as will be the case with the correct answers to many Reasoning Within the Text questions, so don’t be too quick to reject a choice as OS just because the author does not explicitly say it.

BRIDGE

The answers to many Reasoning Within the Text questions will be claims unstated by the passage that can nonetheless be inferred. Remember that inferences include assumptions (unstated evidence) and implications (unstated conclusions). Inferences are discussed in Chapter 3 of MCAT CARS Review.

Opposite (OPP)

Whenever an answer choice contains information that directly conflicts with the passage, we call it an Opposite. Often the difference is due simply to the presence (or absence) of a single word like not or except, a prefix like un–or a–, or even a suffix like –less or –free. Be especially careful when stems or choices involve double (or triple) negatives; they’re much less difficult to understand if you Rephrase them with fewer negations. Moreover, don’t assume that just because two answer choices contradict each other that one of them has to be correct. For example, suppose an author argues that it is impossible to prove whether or not a divine being exists, a variant of the religious view known as agnosticism. If a question accompanying the passage were to ask for a claim the author agreed with, God exists and There is no God would both be Opposites of the correct answer.

Distortion (DIST)

Extreme answers and other answers that “twist” the ideas in the passage further than the author would prefer are what we call Distortions. Although they do not automatically make a choice incorrect, the following are common signals of distorted claims:

MCAT authors typically do not take radical positions on issues, so it’s worth noting whenever they do. In those rare cases, extreme choices would not actually be Distortions of the author’s view and might be correct. The other major case in which extreme answer choices should not be immediately ruled out is when the question stem tells you that you can treat the answer choices as true and your task is only to gauge which would have the greatest impact on a particular argument. This is often the case with Strengthen–Weaken (Beyond the Passage) questions.

8.3 Signs of a Healthy Answer

If you’re like most students prepping for the CARS section, you’ve had a dispute with at least one question explanation. Hey, what about what the author says in the first paragraph? you may have wondered, or perhaps you’ve said to yourself (or aloud!), But couldn’t you think of it like this instead? While you may be in the habit of arguing for points with college professors, it does you no good to try to argue with the MCAT. The AAMC is extremely deliberate about how they word correct answers, always taking care to include exactly one per question.

Correct answer choices can vary widely in appearance, but there are patterns in how they are written as well. If the traps that can lead you astray on Test Day are appropriately called Wrong Answer Pathologies, then these corresponding traits can be thought of as indicators of good health. While the following signs are not enough by themselves to make an answer right, you can generally expect them to correspond to the correct choices in most types of questions.

MCAT EXPERTISE

The scope of a text refers to the particular aspects of a topic that the author addresses. Every paragraph in a CARS passage has its own scope, and together you can think of them as constituting the scope of the whole passage. Similarly, each answer choice will have its own scope, which could mimic any part of the author’s discussion or depart from the passage entirely. It is essential to note that having the same scope doesn’t necessarily mean having identical content. For instance, unstated assumptions in an argument are definitely within the scope of the passage, even though the information they contain is left unsaid by the author.

Appropriate Scope

You might say correct answers follow the “Goldilocks principle” when it comes to scope: not too broad, not too specific, but just right. The scope defines the limits of the discussion, or the particular aspects of the larger topic that the author really cares about. Consideration of the purpose of the passage as you Read and Distill should give you an idea of the scope of the passage overall. As a general rule (with an important exception), correct answers to MCAT questions will remain within the scope of the passage, but you can formulate a more precise expectation of what scope the correct answer needs to have by identifying the question’s type and task.

Main Idea questions will always have correct answers that match the scope of the entire passage. They will typically include at least one wrong answer that is too focused (Faulty Use of Detail) and at least one that goes outside the passage entirely (Out of Scope). In contrast, Detail and Definition-in-Context questions usually require more refined scopes to identify their correct answer choices. If a clue directs you to a particular portion of the passage, the correct answer, more often than not, will have the same scope as the referenced text (or what immediately surrounds it).

The important exception to the rule that answers must remain within the scope of the author’s discussion applies to the category of Reasoning Beyond the Text questions, addressed in Chapter 11. As their name suggests, these broaden the scope to new contexts, sometimes appearing to have no connection to the passage whatsoever. Note, however, that some Reasoning Beyond the Text questions will present new information in the stem but have answers that stick to the scope of the passage anyway. So be savvy with the answer choices in Reasoning Beyond the Text questions: while the correct answer choice will tend to lie slightly outside the scope of the passage, don’t automatically rule out an answer choice just because it happens to be in scope.

Author Agreement

Unless a question stem explicitly asks about an alternative viewpoint or a challenge to the information presented in the passage, a correct answer choice will be consistent with what the author says. This is one reason why considerations of tone (most clearly reflected by Author keywords) are usually important enough to be worth including as you Read and Distill the passage (Highlight, Outline, Interrogate), as was recommended in Chapter 5. Generally, a correct answer should not contradict anything that the author says elsewhere in the passage, with the possible exception of sentences that speak in a different voice than the author’s (such as quotes or references to others’ opinions). In short, if it doesn’t sound like something the author would say, you’ll most likely want to rule it out.

Synonymous Phrasing

The correct answer should match your prediction made in your Investigate step, be it a focused or general prediction. When evaluating answer choices using your prediction, keep in mind that the AAMC often phrases their correct answers with different terms than those presented in the passage. This can lead students to mistakenly rule out correct answers as Out of Scope, simply because they contain unfamiliar language. Thus, when evaluating answer choices, it is key to remember that consistency of meaning is more important than consistency of phrasing.

Weaker Is Usually Better

One final consideration is a consequence of the fact that the AAMC tends to select passages by authors who do not take extreme views. You may find one or two passages on Test Day with more radical writers; for them, a stronger claim in the answer choices may actually be a good sign. However, for most of the passages you’ll encounter, authors tend to use numerous Moderating keywords to limit the strength of their claims. Because a stronger claim has a higher burden of proof (that is, stronger evidence must be provided to support the claim), most authors avoid them to make what they write seem more plausible. Thus, you should generally give preference to answer choices that use weaker language such as can, could, may, might, is possible, sometimes, often, likely, probably, and in some sense. Exceptions to this tendency are questions that instruct you to consider the answer choices as true and gauge their effect on an argument. These were addressed earlier in the discussion of the Distortion Wrong Answer Pathology.

Conclusion

This chapter is only an introduction to the question method; the three chapters that follow are a necessary supplement for seeing how the method functions in practice. Specific strategy suggestions and Worked Examples are included for each of the most common question types and tasks, together constituting well more than 90 percent of what you’ll encounter on Test Day. The explanations accompanying these sample questions will also identify their Wrong Answer Pathologies, giving you some concrete examples to go with the explanations provided here.

GO ONLINE

You’ve reviewed the strategy, now test your knowledge and critical thinking skills by completing a test-like passage set in your online resources!

Concept and Strategy Summary

The Kaplan Method for CARS Questions

Wrong Answer Pathologies

Signs of a Healthy Answer

Worked Example

Use the Worked Example on the next page in tandem with the subsequent practice passages, to internalize and apply the strategies described in this chapter. The Worked Example matches the specifications and style of a typical MCAT Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills (CARS) passage.

Take a few moments to quickly glance over the passage in order to Preview and Choose your approach. The following passage is well suited for the Interrogating method. With a simple structure and four medium-length paragraphs, you will be able to spend more time thinking about the connection between paragraphs and why the author includes specific details. The passage is informative and relatively straightforward, and while there are a lot of details, they are strongly tied to the central argument of the passage, making Interrogating useful for identifying the unique contribution of each major new argument component added. As with all passages, any approach could be chosen and work for this passage. So, remember to practice all approaches as you start your CARS prep in order to determine the approach that works best for you in different passage types!

INTERROGATING METHOD Passage Expert Thinking

Mayan signs are by nature highly pictorial, often representing in considerable detail animals, people, body parts, and objects of daily life. The pictorial principle is taken to the extreme in inscriptions composed of “full-figure” glyphs, in which individual signs and numbers become animated and are shown interacting with one another. None of this should be taken to mean that the Mayans had simple picture writing. The Mayans wrote both logographically and phonetically, and within its phonetic system alone, the Mayans had multiple options. All English words are formed from various combinations of only 26 phonetic signs. By contrast, all Mayan words can be formed from various combinations of nearly 800 consonant–vowel glyphs, each representing a full syllable. Sounds are formed by combining a particular consonant with one of the five vowels (hence a syllabary, rather than alphabet).

S1–2. Why did the author emphasize that Mayan signs are highly detailed?

The details in the images provide a lot of information, in contrast to the reader’s possible preconception that signs are often simple and straightforward.

S3–7. Why is it important to note that the Mayans had two writing systems? Why does the author bring up the English language?

The author distinguishes between logographic (or pictorial) signs and phonetic (or syllabic) ones, explaining that the Mayans used both. She uses the English language as a contrast, demonstrating that its phonetic alphabet is simpler than the Mayan phonetic syllabary, just one of their two writings systems. This is consistent with the first two sentences, providing further evidence that the Mayans had a complex system of writing.

The combination of consonant–vowel syllabic glyphs and logographs enabled the scribes a variety of choices to write the words of their texts in detail. For example, one very common honorific title in Mayan texts is ahaw, meaning “lord” or “noble.” Ahaw may be written in logographic form as a head in profile, with the distinctive headband or scarf that marked the highest nobility in Mayan society. But it is also possible to write the word as a combination of three phonetic, syllabic signs: a–ha–wa. Likewise, the word pakal (“shield”) can be indicated by a depiction of a shield or by the combination of syllabic elements pa–ka–la.

S1–5. Why does the author describe how specific words like ahaw work in the Mayan language?

These words are used as examples of how logographs and phonetic language can describe the same word. This provides further evidence for the argument the author introduced in the first paragraph: having a variety of ways to depict the same concept adds to the overall complexity and utility of the Mayan writing system.

Because many Mayan signs remain undeciphered, it’s not possible to state precisely the relative proportions of logographic and syllabic signs. But a significant number of the logograms have been deciphered, and the number of deciphered syllabic signs keeps growing. Epigraphers have filled more than half of the syllabic grid (which plots the consonants of the spoken Mayan language against its vowels and thus represents the totality of signs needed to write the language). Half of the grid may seem a meager proportion, but it must be remembered that the discovery of the structure of the syllabic elements—Knorozov’s main contribution—was made only a little more than 30 years ago. Furthermore, the consonant–vowel syllables that are already understood are the common ones. Many of the empty spaces in the syllabic grid remain so because they are linguistically rare; rare signs are more difficult to translate than common ones.

S1–5. Why has the author turned to discussing undeciphered Mayan signs? Why is it reasonable that approximately half of the possible Mayan signs have not been deciphered?

Keep in mind that the author is trying to build an argument that the Mayans had a particularly complex system of writing. The fact that the system is not completely understood could serve as a potential objection to this conclusion, so the author tries to set the record straight here. While a lot of the syllabary is unknown, researchers can at least identify what pieces are missing based on their knowledge of the Mayan language. It makes sense that only half have been deciphered because most of the missing pieces are uncommonly used syllables anyway and because the process of deciphering has only been going on for about 30 years (as the reference to Knorozov serves to highlight).

Nonetheless, the pace of phonetic decipherment is bound to increase in the coming years as more resources are trained on it. One aspect of Mayan writing that may complicate this progress is the fact that different signs can have the same value. Two signs that share a value are known as allographs. Such equivalences are common in Mayan texts (there are at least five different signs that could be chosen to represent the Mayan syllable ba). Each scribe chose from several different signs to convey the sounds. In evaluating a particular phonetic interpretation of a syllable, it’s helpful to identify as many of the variant forms as possible; the process of recognizing allographs depends on the slow work of comparing many texts in order to find variant spellings of the same word.

S1–5. Why do allographs possibly hinder deciphering Mayan writing? How does this relate to the bigger idea introduced in P1?

Allographs are two signs that share the same value, and the researchers need to compare many texts to find the different variants, slowing down the process. Ultimately, allographs relate to the central argument introduced in P1 because they indicate the complexity of Mayan writing. After reading the whole passage, the goal should be evident: the author writes in order to argue that the Mayan system of writing is distinctively complex and to explain some of this complexity.

Question Analysis

This is a Function question, which is a Foundations of Comprehension question. Because we read the passage noticing its rhetoric, this is a question that we can do right away. The question stem even tells us to go to paragraph 3, which deals with progress in completing the syllabic grid. Knorozov was used to justify why only about half of the syllabic grid has been filled in—he discovered the syllable structure only “a little more than 30 years ago.”

(A) is a Distortion on two counts: first, the recent discovery is of the syllable structure of the language, not the Mayan signs themselves; second, prove is far too strong a word—the author is not nearly so extreme.

(B) fits and is the correct answer. Knorozov and his recent discovery is part of the justification for why there is so little filled in on the syllabic grid. This also fits with our interrogation of paragraph 3.

(C) is a Faulty Use of Detail; the challenge presented by allographs is described in paragraph 4 and is not associated with Knorozov.

(D) is a classic Out of Scope answer choice as other linguistic structures are never discussed in paragraph 3.

This is a Definition-in-Context question. As another Foundations of Comprehension question, we can do this right away. We saw “logographic” in paragraphs 1 and 2. When introduced in paragraph 1, the gist of the word was that it was a picture. Paragraph 2 then describes the writing of the word Ahaw: “Ahaw may be written in logographic form as a head in profile.” Because a picture is used to represent the word in logographic form, they must be pictorial symbols.

(A) and (B) are both Opposites that describe the other form of Mayan writing presented in the passage.

(C) simply paraphrases the idea of pictorial representation, so it’s the correct answer.

(D) is a Distortion; although logographs are visual representations, the author suggests that they represent single words, not entire idiomatic phrase[s].

This is an Apply question. Because this is a Reasoning Beyond the Text question type, this is one that we should save for later. The question asks what the author … would be LEAST likely to agree with, so the answer should be inconsistent with the author’s beliefs. The author believes that Mayan writing is complex for several reasons but is steadily being deciphered. The correct answer will contradict this or some other point from the passage.

(A) is an Opposite; the author would certainly agree with this statement given her belief that the language is more than just “simple picture writing”; the description of the “800 … glyphs,” multiple ways of writing the same word, and allographs support this idea.

(B) is Out of Scope; this comparison is never made, so it’s impossible to say whether the author would agree with this statement or not.

The author would certainly disagree with (C), making it the correct answer. Mayan writing doesn’t convey only simple ideas, the author would argue, because it’s more than just “simple picture writing.”

(D) is an Opposite; this summarizes the point of paragraph 4: allographs are a complication that makes deciphering Mayan writing more difficult.

This is another Function question, so we should do it right away. Where did we see the words ahaw and pakal? The words were in paragraph 2. The purpose of paragraph 2 is to explain that a logograph (picture) and a combination of syllables can both be used to represent the same word.

(A) Distorts the author’s point: the same word can have multiple ways of being represented, not multiple meanings.

(B) is Out of Scope, as the author does not suggest a comparison between the flexibility of phonetic and logo-graphic writing—just that they can both be used to write certain words.

(C) is a Faulty Use of Detail; even though the syllabic grid has been slow to fill due to linguistically rare words, this is a point from paragraph 3 rather than paragraph 2, where ahaw and pakal are introduced.

(D) matches cleanly with the prediction and is the correct answer.

This is an Inference question, asking for a conclusion the author did not explicitly state, or an implication. Because the example is not explicitly stated in the passage, we should save this question until later. Problems with decipherment are mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4. In paragraph 3, the author noted that the remaining unknown syllables are rarely used and thus harder to translate. Paragraph 4 continued the idea by talking about allographs. The author does say in the last lines of the passage that deciphering allographs depends on comparing many texts. Look for an answer that sounds like the points in either of these two paragraphs.

(A) is a Distortion; the author argues at the beginning of paragraph 4 that the “pace of phonetic decipherment is bound to increase” as more resources are trained on it, but stops short of saying that more resources should be trained on it, or suggesting what form those resources might take. This answer choice changes a statement of fact to a recommendation, as well as interpreting resources far more specifically than can be justified by the passage.

(B) is an Opposite; because allographs are phonetic representations, the author would argue that if anything, there should be more attention given to syllabic signs than logographic signs—many of which have already been deciphered.

(C) Distorts the author and is extreme; the author actually seems content with the current, incomplete state of the grid and its slow but steady progress toward being filled in.

(D) closely reflects statements at the end of paragraph 4 that “the process of recognizing allographs depends on the slow work of comparing many texts in order to find variant spellings of the same word.” That makes it correct.

This is an Inference question and best saved for later. The question stem references the ratio between two types of signs. Refer back to paragraph 3 where this is discussed. The author says that “it’s not possible to state precisely the relative proportions of logographic and syllabic signs” because many of the signs are undeciphered. The clear implication is that as these signs are deciphered, the ratio will become clearer.

(A) is Out of Scope; the author suggests that the lack of a ratio is due to a lack of information, not because of disagree[ment].

(B) is also Out of Scope, as the author doesn’t indicate anything about the practical value of knowing this ratio.

(C) is a Distortion; the author mentions that the number of deciphered signs is growing. So, if anything, the author would argue that a ratio may be established some day in the future.

(D) matches perfectly. Once all logographs and syllables are translated, we would know the ratio—but that will require more work.

This is a Strengthen–Weaken (Beyond the Passage) question, so we should save it until last. We need to call the complexity of Mayan writing into question; this means we need to find that answer that would make the author’s conclusion less likely. Where do we see the author’s argument about the complexity of Mayan writing? In paragraph 3, the author states that Mayan writing is complex due to the fact that it includes both logographic and syllabic systems. In paragraph 4, the author goes on to state that part of the problem in deciphering Mayan writing is the presence of so many allographs that scribes had to choose from when writing. To make the conclusion about complexity less likely, we need to find a statement that challenges the conclusion, a piece of evidence used to support it, or an unstated assumption.

(A) is exactly what we are looking for: if allographs are actually just stylistic differences—and not “different signs that could be chosen to represent” the same syllable, then one key piece of evidence for the author’s conclusion is refuted. While this isn’t a particularly strong challenge to the argument (because there’s a lot more evidence provided for it in the passage), it’s stronger than any of the other choices, which makes it correct.

(B) is a statement made by the author in paragraph 3. The author explains in that paragraph why this lack of completion is reasonable, so this choice doesn’t challenge the author’s argument.

(C) is incorrect because the relative extent of decipherment was shown in paragraph 3 not to be relevant to the author’s conclusion.

(D) is incorrect because Mayan is not a purely logographic language, but uses both logographs and a phonetic syllabary. The comparison here is irrelevant to the author’s argument.

Practice Questions

Passage 1 (Questions 1–7)

The rich analysis of Fernand Braudel and his fellow Annales historians have made significant contributions to historical theory and research, not the least of which is a broad expansion of potential routes of scholastic analysis. In a departure from traditional approaches, the Annales historians assume that history cannot be limited to a simple recounting of conscious human actions, but must be understood in the context of forces and material conditions that underlie human behavior. Braudel was the first Annales historian to gain widespread support for the idea that history should synthesize data from various social sciences, especially economics, in order to provide a broader view of human societies over time (although Febvre and Bloch, founders of the Annales school, originated this approach).

Braudel conceived of history as the dynamic interaction of three temporalities. The first of these, the evenementielle, involved short-lived dramatic “events,” such as battles, revolutions, and the actions of great men, which had preoccupied traditional historians like Carlyle. Conjonctures was Braudel’s term for larger cyclical processes that might last up to half a century. The longue durée, a historical wave of great length, was for Braudel the most fascinating of the three temporalities. Here he focused on those aspects of everyday life that might remain relatively unchanged for centuries. What people ate, what they wore, their means and routes of travel—for Braudel, these things create “structures” that define the limits of potential social change for hundreds of years at a time.

Braudel’s concept of the longue durée extended the perspective of historical physical space as well as time. Until the Annales school, historians had generally taken the juridical political unit—the nation-state, duchy, or whatever—as their starting point. Yet, when such enormous timespans are considered, geographical features may well have more significance for human populations than national borders. In his doctoral thesis, a seminal work on the Mediterranean during the reign of Philip II, Braudel treated the geohistory of the entire region as a “structure” that had exerted myriad influences on human lifeways since the first settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. So, the reader is given such esoteric information as the list of products that came to Spanish shores from North Africa, the seasonal routes followed by Mediterranean sheep and their shepherds, and the cities where the best ship timber could be bought.

Braudel has been faulted for the impression of his approach. With his Rabelaisian delight in concrete detail, Braudel vastly extended the realm of relevant phenomena; but this very achievement made it difficult to delimit the boundaries of observation, a task necessary to beginning any social analysis. Indeed, to identify an appropriate scope of work when all options and directions for academic inquiry are available before one’s eyes is a nearly impossible task. Further, Braudel and other Annales historians minimize the differences among the social sciences. Nevertheless, the many similarly designed studies aimed at both professional and popular audiences indicate that Braudel asked significant questions that traditional historians had overlooked.

Practice Answers

Passage 1 (Questions 1–7) Sample Highlighting P1. “synthesize data”; P2. “dramatic event,” “cyclical processes,” and “aspects of everyday life”; P3. “geographical features”; P4. “delimit the boundaries” and “minimizes difference.”

Sample Outlining P1. Annales vs. traditional historians; Braudel popularized

P2. Braudel’s three temporalities

P3. Expansion on longue durée as geohistory

P4. Braudel critics: “scope too broad, differences of social sciences blurred”; Author: “but asked new questions”

1. D

A classic Function question: Why did the author refer to Febvre and Bloch? Go back to the end of paragraph 1 where Febvre and Bloch are mentioned and read the surrounding text: “Braudel was the first Annales historian to gain widespread support of the idea that history should synthesize data from various social sciences … (although Febvre and Bloch, founders of the Annales school, originated this approach).” In other words, while Braudel popularized this approach, it was actually Febvre and Bloch who came up with it in the first place. This prediction matches closely with (D), which has Febvre and Bloch anticipat[ing] Braudel’s approach. (A) and (C) both suggest that Febvre and Bloch could be used to argue against the Annales approach, which is inconsistent with their roles as originators of this same approach. (B) tries to Distort the author’s use of Febvre and Bloch: economics is clearly relevant for the Annales approach to historical investigation, but Febvre and Bloch are not used in the context of supporting the relevance of economics—they are mentioned only because they used economics before Braudel.

2. B

This is another Function question that essentially asks, What is the role of the third paragraph? Refer back to paragraph 3 and summarize its purpose: Expansion on longue durée as geohistory. This prediction matches closely with (B), which reflects on the role of geography in human history. (A) is a Faulty Use of Detail wrong answer; the author does mention Braudel’s attention to esoteric information, but this is a minor detail from the paragraph that misses the full purpose of expanding on the longue durée. (C) is also a Faulty Use of Detail; the geography of the Mediterranean region is used to support the use of geography in Braudel’s approach, but the primary concern is not to discuss the geography of the Mediterranean specifically—rather, it is to show how geography can influence human history. (D) Distorts the author’s words. Braudel does shy away from national borders to focus on geographic borders, but that does not mean that all national borders are irrelevan[t].

3. D

This is an Inference question. Based on the evidence presented in the passage, we should be able to infer a difference between traditional and Annales historians. From our initial analysis, we know that the two are contrasted in paragraph 1, so this is where we will look for clues. The key to the answer is given in the second sentence: “In a departure from traditional approaches, the Annales historians assume that history … must be understood in the context of forces and material conditions that underlie human behavior.” In other words, the Annales historians are more interested in the underlying context of human behavior than traditional historians, as (D) states. (A) Distorts the author’s words: the Annales are interested in incorporating social sciences into historical analysis, but that does not mean that they are more interested in other social sciences than in history— they are historians, after all! (B) is also a Distortion. The Annales historians propose that history is more than just the actions of famous figures, but this doesn’t mean that they are critical of those figure’s achievements. Finally, (C) is an Opposite. Annales historians want to incorporate economic research findings into historical analysis and so should not be skeptical of the validity of such approaches.

4. D

We want to predict what direction the author would go in if the passage were continued in this Reasoning Beyond the Text question. The purpose of the last paragraph was to mention criticisms of Braudel’s approach and respond to those criticisms. The paragraph ends by responding to criticism by citing the contribution of Braudel’s work: “studies … indicate that Braudel asked significant questions that traditional historians had overlooked.” If another sentence were added, it should continue along the same lines of highlighting the influence or merits of Braudel. This prediction matches perfectly with (D). (A) would backtrack on the author’s support by questioning the professionalism of the authors of such studies. (B) is both Out of Scope and Opposite. Incorporation of the Carlylean approach mentioned in paragraph 2 would come out of nowhere at the end of paragraph 4, and it also represents the traditional approach to historical analysis; the author is unlikely to support a revival of this approach. Finally, (C) is a criticism of Braudel, and because the author is defending Braudel in the last part of the paragraph, this answer choice is an Opposite.

5. B

This is a Detail question, so we simply need to find the appropriate information in the passage. From our initial analysis, we know that the beginning of paragraph 4 is where the criticisms of Braudel are brought up. In fact, Braudel’s critics believed his scope was too broad, and that the differences among social sciences were blurred. This prediction matches (B). (A) is a Faulty Use of Detail. Braudel seeks structures like geohistory that underlie social activity in history; however, this is not in paragraph 4 and is not a criticism of Braudel. (C) is Out of Scope; while Braudel’s “three temporalities” are discussed, the relationship between them is never addressed. Finally, (D) is an Opposite answer choice. According to paragraph 4, critics thought Braudel’s approach “made it difficult to delimit the boundaries of observation.” This statement is at odds with rigidly define[d] boundaries in this answer choice.

6. C

This is an Apply question of the Example subtype. We must use the author’s description of the longue durée to identify a similar example. Paragraph 2 defines the three temporalities and defines the longue durée as being an “historical wave of great length” on the order of hundreds of years. Only (C) has even remotely that long of a duration, making it the correct answer. (A) and (D) are short-lived events in history just as the evenementielle temporality is defined in the passage. (B) describes a cyclical event that occur[s] … roughly every half-century, which would fit the definition of the conjonctures temporality described in the passage.

7. A

The question asks us to suppose new information. Thus, this is a Reasoning Beyond the Text question. If we glance at the answer choices, we can see that this is a Strengthen–Weaken question. The question stem introduces a quote from Braudel that emphasizes his interest in the influence of one man’s decisions in history. The focus on one man’s influence is most similar to the evenementielle temporality discussed in paragraph 2. We also see in this paragraph that Braudel considered the longue durée the “most fascinating of the three temporalities.” The quote given in the question stem would go against the information in the passage, so we can immediately cross off (C) and (D), which claim that this quote would strengthen the author’s claim. The logic presented here matches with (A). (B) is a Distortion because the author claims that Braudel is most fascinated by the longue durée temporality, but that is not the same thing as saying Braudel is not interested at all in other aspects of history. In fact, Braudel gives the actions of great men their own temporality, the evenementielle, so Braudel must be at least somewhat interested in these actions.

← Applying the Kaplan Passage Strategy All chapters Question Types I: Foundations of Compreh →