MCAT Textbooks / MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023 / Ch 10 of 12

📖 Question Types II: Reasoning Within the Text Questions

9,649 words · 1 figures · ≈42 min read · MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023

Chapter 10: Question Types II: Reasoning Within the Text Questions

Chapter 10

Chapter 10, Question Types II: Reasoning Within the Text Questions

Chapter 10: Question Types II: Reasoning Within the Text Questions

Chapter 10: Question Types II: Reasoning Within the Text Questions

Chapter 10

Chapter 10, Question Types II: Reasoning Within the Text Questions

In This Chapter

10.1Function Questions

Sample Question Stems

Strategy

Function Questions—Applied Example

10.2Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) Questions

Sample Question Stems

Strategy

Strengthen-Weaken (Within the Passage) Questions—Applied Example

10.3**Other Reasoning Within the Text Questions**

Clarification

Weakness

Paradox

Concept and Strategy Summary

Introduction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After Chapter 10, you will be able to:

In this chapter, we’ll continue the treatment of question types first employed with Foundations of Comprehension, now examining the two types of Reasoning Within the Text questions that Kaplan has identified: Function questions, which ask about why the author included a piece of information or argument in the passage, and Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) questions, which predominantly concern the ways in which arguments are backed by evidence and undermined by refutations. This chapter adopts the same general approach as Chapter 9: after identifying what makes the questions distinctive and offering several common question stems, we discuss strategies for each question type, illustrating them with a few Applied Examples.

Reasoning Within the Text questions account for approximately 30 percent of what you’ll encounter on Test Day, according to both the AAMC’s official statements and Kaplan’s own extensive research of released AAMC material. In general, Function questions are roughly as common as Detail and Strengthen–Weaken (Beyond the Passage) questions, but they are less common than Apply questions. Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) questions are more rare than Function questions.

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

10.1 Function Questions

One of the reasons that the Kaplan Method for CARS Passages emphasizes reading for perspective (trying to understand the author’s attitude and intentions) rather than just for detail is that the Function question type specifically asks about what the author is trying to do in the passage. Unlike a Main Idea question, which might ask about the overall goal of the passage, a Function question will ask about the purpose of only a portion of the passage, often in the context of the author’s larger argument. Further, these questions will require some level of critical thinking about why a piece of information was included, meaning they involve an additional level of complexity beyond the Foundations of Comprehension question types seen in Chapter 9.

Sample Question Stems

What should be readily apparent in the phrasing of Function questions is frequent mention of the author and the use of direct references to the text—especially through paragraph references. Language like purpose, motive, and intention indicate a Function question, as do phrases that end with in order to and because. Use these key phrases and traits to Type the question quickly. For Function questions, the Rephrase step tends to be fairly straightforward, as these questions usually state the task to be accomplished.

Strategy

Function questions are usually specific to a certain portion of the passage that can be directly referenced, making them a good option to solve now rather than later. Referring back to your Distill step will be key when working with a Function question. If you were reading for perspective by looking for Author keywords (which give a glimpse from the author’s point of view), you may have already considered the information you need to answer such a question in your Distill step; it might even be highlighted or in your outline, if you chose either of those approaches. Keep in mind that, generally speaking, Function questions work in a nested way. In other words, the passage as a whole has a purpose, and each paragraph within it has a subordinate function that is distinct but that contributes to the larger whole. Each paragraph can in turn be broken down into sentences, each of which has its own particular role to play in the paragraph—and even sentences can be broken down into particular words or phrases.

Because a Function question will generally ask for the purpose of no more than a paragraph, to Investigate this question type you should recall or refer back to your Distill step for the specific paragraph (and perhaps also consider the author’s overall goal in the passage). Then, if buzzwords in the question stem direct you to specific sentences, reread those portions of the paragraph if needed and think about how they fit into the purpose of the paragraph and the passage’s general purpose. If you chose to Distill by Interrogating, you may find you don’t even have to return to the passage, and can instead directly predict an answer. Formulate a statement of the function, and then start to look for an answer that matches.

Remember, if you can’t find a perfect match, you can eliminate choices that are inconsistent with the passage at a higher level. For example, the purpose of a paragraph will not be at odds with the author’s goal for the passage as a whole unless that paragraph represents a counterargument. Even when authors bring up information that conflicts with their main arguments, they commonly do so for the sake of shooting it down—answering or countering a refutation they introduced in a prior portion of the passage.

Function Questions—Applied Example

The most prevalent argument against doctor-assisted suicide relies upon a distinction between passive and active euthanasia—in essence, the difference between killing someone and letting that person die. On this account, a physician is restricted by her Hippocratic oath to do no harm and thus cannot act in ways that would inflict the ultimate harm, death. In contrast, failing to resuscitate an individual who is dying is permitted because this would be only an instance of refraining from help and not a willful cause of harm. The common objection to this distinction, that it is vague and therefore difficult to apply, does not carry much weight. After all, applying ethical principles of any sort to the complexities of the world is an enterprise fraught with imprecision.

Rather, the fundamental problem with the distinction is that it is not an ethically relevant one, readily apparent in the following thought experiment. Imagine a terminally ill patient hooked up to an unusual sort of life support device, one that only functioned to prevent a separate “suicide machine” from administering a lethal injection so long as the doctor pressed a button on it once per day. Would there be any relevant difference between using the suicide machine directly and not using the prevention device? The intention of the doctor would be the same (fulfilling the patient’s wish to die), and the effect would be the same (an injection causing the patient’s death). The only variance here is the means by which the effect comes about, and this is not an ethical difference but merely a technical one.

Example:

Solution: The first step in the method is to Type this question as a Function question. This can be done by recognizing the “intention … is to” portion of the question stem as asking why a specific piece of information was included. Your approach to Function questions will differ depending on which approach you took to the passage. However, they will all rely on one thing: knowing why the author mentioned the fact from the question stem. As this question stem has a direct task already listed, the Rephrase step is likely not necessary.

The question stem directly states a location and quoted term, meaning that whether you outlined, highlighted, or interrogated, the location of the relevant information in the passage is readily available. However, we don’t actually need to dive back into the passage to answer this question. To investigate, recall the purpose of paragraph two or refer back to your outline or highlighting to find that purpose. We know that the author used the “suicide machine” thought experiment to support his argument, so this will suffice as a prediction. Going back to the text itself shouldn’t be necessary unless the answer choices take us somewhere unexpected. Fortunately, that is not the case with this question, and we can see that (A) gives us precisely what we need. The time spent distilling the passage has been more than paid back with a quick correct response.

Among the wrong answers, (B) is wrong for bringing in vagueness, when the point of the thought experiment is to question whether the passive/active distinction is ethically relevant—not vagueness. (C) might be considered a Faulty Use of Detail because the operation of this machine is explained. However, the machine is being described not for its own sake—it’s imaginary, after all—but simply to illustrate a point. The final incorrect option, (D), would be a product of taking the thought experiment too literally.

10.2 Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) Questions

Strengthen–Weaken questions span two of AAMC’s delineated categories, but both types generally concern the logical relationships between conclusions and the evidence that strengthens them or the refutations that weaken them. Note that the only substantial difference between Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) questions and Strengthen–Weaken (Beyond the Passage) questions is that the former stick to the passage as written while the latter will bring in some new element, usually appearing in the question stem, though on occasion only in the answer choices.

Sample Question Stems

As this list suggests, these types of questions often contain references indicating that the answers will be taken directly from the text and are heavy on words indicating connections between claims like relate, support, and challenge. Some question stems may be ambiguous about whether the support or challenge you’re looking for will be coming from within the text or outside of it, in which case you’ll also want to bear in mind the strategy for Strengthen–Weaken (Beyond the Passage) questions, detailed in Chapter 11.

Strategy

Every Strengthen–Weaken question has three pieces: two claims and the connection between them. You will always be given at least one of these elements, and your task will be to find the other(s), so begin your Investigate step by identifying where each piece can be found: either directly in the stem itself, somewhere in the passage, or in the answer choices.

If the connection is revealed in the question stem, it will typically be some variation of strengthen (support) or weaken (challenge), as the name of these questions suggests. However, when the connection does not occur until the answer choices, such as when a stem uses vague words like relevance, significance, or impact, the claims occasionally have some other relationship, such as identity (meaning the same thing) or even irrelevance. Once you know whether your task is to Strengthen, Weaken, or find some yet-to-be-discovered relevance, the next step of your investigation will be to research the status of any claims quoted or otherwise referenced in the question stem. The number of steps you must go through as you investigate will vary based on the number of claims in the stem.

If no other claims are mentioned, such as in a question like Which of the following passage assertions is the LEAST supported?, you should probably save the question for later and then use the process of elimination in your Investigate step.

If the question stem refers to two claims, then the task must be to find the nature of the relationship they share, so think about whether one claim supports the other, remembering that evidence makes a conclusion more likely to be true and refutations make conclusions less probable.

KEY CONCEPT

Evidence is used to support a conclusion through a one-way relationship. A refutation is used as a counterargument against a conclusion through a one-way relationship.

In most cases, though, you’ll be presented with only one claim in the question stem, so plan to investigate the given statement as a conclusion, piece of evidence, or a refutation. Start your research with the relevant sentence, but check the surrounding text for language suggestive of a relationship. When you are researching the passage, Logic keywords are just about as important for Strengthen–Weaken questions as they are for Inference questions. If the question stem specified the relationship, pay special attention to that one; otherwise, keep an eye out for any logical connections made to the claim, using those to set expectations.

If your initial plan of attack proves unsuccessful, try process of elimination, crossing out any answer choice that does not establish the correct kind of relationship. Do not forget that support is unidirectional: if the “arrow” points the wrong way, it cannot be the right choice. So, for instance, if you are asked to find a claim that supports the author’s thesis, a potential wrong answer is an implication that could be drawn if you assumed the thesis was true—in other words, a conclusion that the thesis itself supported.

Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) Questions—Applied Example

The most prevalent argument against doctor-assisted suicide relies upon a distinction between passive and active euthanasia—in essence, the difference between killing someone and letting that person die. On this account, a physician is restricted by her Hippocratic oath to do no harm and thus cannot act in ways that would inflict the ultimate harm, death. In contrast, failing to resuscitate an individual who is dying is permitted because this would be only an instance of refraining from help and not a willful cause of harm. The common objection to this distinction, that it is vague and therefore difficult to apply, does not carry much weight. After all, applying ethical principles of any sort to the complexities of the world is an enterprise fraught with imprecision.

Rather, the fundamental problem with the distinction is that it is not an ethically relevant one, readily apparent in the following thought experiment. Imagine a terminally ill patient hooked up to an unusual sort of life support device, one that only functioned to prevent a separate “suicide machine” from administering a lethal injection so long as the doctor pressed a button on it once per day. Would there be any relevant difference between using the suicide machine directly and not using the prevention device? The intention of the doctor would be the same (fulfilling the patient’s wish to die), and the effect would be the same (an injection causing the patient’s death). The only variance here is the means by which the effect comes about, and this is not an ethical difference but merely a technical one.

Example:

Solution: The first thing to notice in your Type step is that this question is a Roman numeral question. A glance at the answer choices also tells you that this is a Strengthen–Weaken question based on the use of the words contradicted, bolstered, and underlies. The question asks about roles that are played in the passage by a statement given in the stem, so you can identify this as a Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) question. However, it’s a Roman numeral question, and these are usually more time-consuming. Your best bet is to save this for the end of the question set.

When you do solve this question, rephrase the base stem of the question first and leave the Roman numerals aside for the time being. Then, Investigate to find the claim referenced in the question stem. As is often the case in more complex Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) questions, there is no single sentence that contains all the words in the assertion; rather, parts of it are spread throughout the text. The two lines that are most important are the opening sentences of each paragraph, the first of which refers to “the difference between killing someone and letting that person die” and the second of which maintains that “the distinction … is not an ethically relevant one.” To Rephrase, we could ask ourselves What is the connection between the two paragraphs?

As you investigate, you can see that the claim that the distinction is ethically relevant must be what is “relie[d] upon” (Evidence keyword) by the so-called “most prevalent argument against doctor-assisted suicide.” In other words, the claim that the distinction is ethically relevant plays a supporting role in that argument. Second, it is clear that the second paragraph is denying this claim. These initial observations already offer a sense of two roles that the distinction plays, a fairly thorough prediction.

At this point, you can start the Match step by looking at the answer choices to see how the Roman numerals are distributed. We generally recommend starting with the most common numeral or, alternatively, whichever seems easiest for you. Statements I and III both appear three times, so start with the shorter of them. Statement III suggests the claim underlies the most common argument, which is precisely as predicted. Therefore, Statement III must be true and (B) can be crossed off.

Turning to Statement I, you’ll note the mention of “the distinction between active and passive euthanasia,” which you were told in the first sentence was “in essence, the difference between killing someone and letting that person die.” This is consistent with the expectation set earlier that the second paragraph challenges the assertion that the claim is ethically relevant. The final sentence confirms it: “this is not an ethical difference but merely a technical one.” The “not” tells you that this is the contradiction that Statement I suggests, so it must also be true, eliminating (A).

There are still two answer choices remaining, so you will have to deal with Statement II. The contention that it mentions did not figure into our prediction, so check the text to find the reference, which is located at the end of the first paragraph. How does this assertion relate to the original claim that the distinction is ethically relevant? The clue is the keyword that precedes the assertion: After all. Even though it may sound like a Conclusion keyword on the surface, it’s actually an Evidence keyword, which means that this assertion about applying ethical principles is in truth used to support something else. Specifically, this statement bolsters the author’s belief that the “common objection” to the distinction carries little weight. This is not the relationship suggested by Statement II, which says that the claim that the distinction is ethically relevant supports how hard it is to apply ethical principles precisely. Thus, Statement II is false. Only Statements I and III are true, making (C) the only match, and thus the correct answer.

MCAT EXPERTISE

CARS authors often use multiple terms (words or phrases) to describe the same concept, or underlying idea. On Test Day, pay special attention to the ways in which authors use terms, especially when you see Opposition keywords. When you come across dualisms, you can draw a set of columns adjacent to your map on your note board and jot down what words the author uses for each side of the contrast. This can serve as a handy reference for any synonymous language you might encounter in the questions and answer choices. So, for the ethics passage, you would put killing and active euthanasia in one column and letting die and passive euthanasia in the other.

Example:

Solution: Question 3 is somewhat tricky to untangle, with its multiple negative terms, but you can use the phrases challenges and from the passage to Type this question as a Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) question— specifically, Weaken. However, the LEAST means a Scattered format, one in which you’ll probably have to test all of the answer choices. Save this for later if possible.

When Rephrasing, begin by clarifying the argument for the prohibition of active euthanasia. Although the order after the dash in the first sentence is switched, it should be clear from the subsequent sentence that active euthanasia refers to the act of killing, which is supposedly forbidden because of the Hippocratic oath that the physician takes. This argument prohibiting active euthanasia is, in fact, the most prevalent argument from the first line. The correct answer, then, will be the one that challenges this argument the least.

The Scattered form suggests process of elimination as the best Investigate and Match method, but before resorting to that, it doesn’t hurt to see whether the author actually talks about a challenge that he or she regards poorly because that could be the very answer you’re seeking. Indeed, the author does say in paragraph 1 that “the common objection … does not carry much weight.” The objection referenced is that it’s difficult to apply the distinction between killing and letting someone die, so this can serve as your prediction.

Looking at the answers, you can see that this prediction matches (B). However, you should be cautious with this sort of question. While the passage says that the objection carries little weight, it does not say that it carries no weight at all, meaning that if there were an answer choice that had no effect or even supported the argument, that would be even less of a challenge. As it turns out, the remaining answer choices are all aspects of the counterargument made in the second paragraph, and all do indeed challenge the original argument. Now you can be confident that (B) is the correct answer.

10.3 Other Reasoning Within the Text Questions

There are a few rarer types of questions that do not neatly fall into either the Inference or Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) categories, but that definitely concern passage reasoning and that do show up in some CARS sections. These can take many different forms and all are rare, so we’ll just focus our discussion on three typical tasks.

Clarification

Questions that ask about clarification concern a relationship that is very similar to support, as it is also a one-way relationship. One assertion clarifies another if the two share roughly the same meaning, but the “clarifying” part is typically more specific or exact. Because the clarifying language tends to be more precise, its truth value is easier to assess, and thus you should think of “clarifying” statements as supporting evidence for “clarified” conclusions. Approach them more or less as you would a Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) question, except keep in mind that the meanings should be roughly synonymous.

With the ethics passage, for instance, you could see a Clarification question like Which of the following clarifies the author’s statement that the common argument against physician-assisted suicide rests upon the distinction between passive and active euthanasia? The answer would most likely come from one of the sentences that followed, which explained the difference between the two more concretely, including the reasons why one is supposedly permitted and the other is not. In addition to words like clarify, words like explain and reflect are used in questions to indicate this kind of relationship.

KEY CONCEPT

In a Clarification question, look for an answer choice that is nearly synonymous with the given claim, only that is more specific or exact.

Weakness

Weakness questions are somewhat related to Inference questions, but they concern implicit weaknesses and reasonable objections to arguments discussed in the passage. Instead of the Denial Test, the best way to investigate is often via the process of elimination by directly examining the effect that answer choices have on the argument in question. The correct answer will have the most significant negative impact on the argument, perhaps even contradicting it altogether.

One example of a Weakness question for a passage we’ve seen would be Which of the following is the greatest inherent weakness in the author’s use of a thought experiment to support the main argument? This is a more complex type of Reasoning Within the Text, and it is one among a number of rarer questions that require you to appraise the strength of the author’s reasoning. The answer to this example might be the fact that thought experiments force the author to rely upon readers’ imagination and intuition, which may not always result in the same conclusion as the author intended.

KEY CONCEPT

Answering a Weakness question is just like using the Denial Test, discussed in Chapter 9 for Inference questions. The difference is that the correct answer choice will be detrimental to the arguments in the passage without being negated.

Paradox

Finally, by a paradox, we mean an apparent logical contradiction, a set typically consisting of two assertions that seem inconsistent, but only at first glance. These will usually include two distinct claims from the text, phrased in a way to make them sound conflicting, followed by a question like How would the author resolve this dilemma? or How might the passage account for this discrepancy? Sometimes one of the claims will be a new element, which would technically make such questions Reasoning Beyond the Text, although they should still be approached with the same strategy in this case.

KEY CONCEPT

A paradox is a set of two claims that appear to be inconsistent on the surface. The correct answer in a Paradox question will be consistent with both of the claims, and it will usually attempt to explain the surface inconsistencies between the two claims.

The correct answer to a Paradox question must be consistent with both of the claims given in the question stem. If possible, it should also not conflict with anything that the author says elsewhere in the passage. Thus, to resolve paradoxes, you should use process of elimination, marking out any answer choice that is inconsistent with one or both of the claims (or with the passage as a whole).

Conclusion

Although often variable in appearance, Reasoning Within the Text questions test only a few essential skills: identifying inherent weaknesses in arguments; identifying the function of parts of the argument; understanding relationships of consistency and conflict; and recognizing the connections in passages between conclusions, evidence, and refutations. Regardless of how challenging these questions may seem to you now, you have the ability to improve your reasoning skills! The solution is to practice using Logic keywords to identify support relationships, and applying the other strategies discussed in this chapter as you Type, Rephrase, and Investigate questions. These tactics will also be useful when working on the final class of questions, Reasoning Beyond the Text, the subject of the upcoming chapter.

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

Function Questions

Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) Questions

Other Reasoning Within the Text Questions

Worked Example

Use the Worked Example below, 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 paragraphs of this passage may seem lengthy, but most of that volume is dedicated to examples to support the conclusions that are provided at the start of each paragraph. As each paragraph appears to center around one theme with examples, Outlining should be extremely effective. To work this passage efficiently, just make sure not to fall into the trap of trying to note all the supporting details. The language and wording are not overly complex, making it relatively easy to spot those arguments and extract a short summary for the outline. As with all passages, any approach could be chosen and work for this passage, so, remember to practice and hone all approaches as you start your CARS prep!

OUTLINING METHOD Passage Expert Thinking

Certain contemporary forms of literary criticism draw on modern sociology and political science to understand literary works. There has been a conservative reaction to these schools of criticism, accusing them of imposing modern ideas on old texts. For example, some would consider it an implausible claim that Shakespeare’s The Tempest can be interpreted as a play about “colonialism” and “imperialism”; after all, these terms were not even in use when Shakespeare wrote the play. These concepts must therefore be modern ones, and it is anachronistic to suppose that Shakespeare had them in mind. Besides, as Ben Jonson wrote, Shakespeare “was not of an age, but for all time,” and it trivializes his genius to suppose that he had in mind the fashionable concerns of any one period. The conservative reading of The Tempest sees it as a play about “universal” themes like estrangement and reconciliation.

What argument does the author introduce in the first paragraph?

The author states that modern literary criticism uses modern ideas on old texts, and that there has been an accusatory reaction to this from the conservative side.

Is there evidence to back up this argument?

Yes. The author provides The Tempest as an example. However, we do not need to write down any details on that in our outline.

Does the author take a stance on the issue?

No keywords point to tone at this point in the passage.

P1: Conserv: modern crit uses modern bias, evidence

But writers do live in specific societies and are affected by the cultures of the times and places in which they live. The establishment of colonies—the building of empires—was an issue of keen concern in England in the early 17th century. It was a matter of national prestige and also a potential source of private wealth. All the great powers of Europe were competing for the wealth of the East and West Indies. The rich hoped to add to their fortunes; the poor hoped to begin their lives anew in the New World. Richard Hakluyt’s Voyages, a series of published accounts of European explorations in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, was one of the most successful publishing ventures of Elizabethan England. Moreover, although the words colonialism and imperialism had not been coined yet, the ideas they connote already existed, in the sense that some Europeans perceived ethical problems relating to empire-building. The Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas had already condemned the cruelty of the Spanish regime in Mexico and the Caribbean, and the French essayist Michel de Montaigne had already compared the “cannibals” favorably with decadent Europeans.

This paragraph starts with a contrast keyword (“But”). What does that indicate is coming next?

This paragraph will center around the author disagreeing with the view from the previous paragraph.

What is the author’s argument?

The author argues that while certain modern words were not used in the time of older literary texts, the ideas behind those texts already existed.

Is there support for the author’s claims?

Yes. Multiple examples are provided. We do not need to try to analyze or remember all the details, as our outline will send us back to this paragraph if needed.

P2: Auth ≠ conserv, mod ideas already existed, evidence

Now let us look again at The Tempest. Here is a play about a European family ruling a remote island by superior European technology (magic, learned from books) and the enforced labor of the native population. When another group of Europeans arrives on the island, one of them imagines an ideal commonwealth in terms derived, as scholars have long recognized, from Montaigne’s essay about the native people of Brazil. The prostrate Caliban reminds Trinculo of a “dead Indian” who might be exhibited in England for crowds willing to pay to see an exotic “monster.” And scholars have long recognized that the story of The Tempest is suggested in part by accounts of the Sea Venture, shipwrecked in Bermuda in 1609 on the way to the Virginia colonies.

What new ideas or themes are introduced in this paragraph?

The first sentence of this paragraph tells us that the author is coming back to The Tempest example. Since we do not have any Contrast keywords, it is safe to assume that the author will try to apply the argument from the previous paragraph to The Tempest, which conservatives used as an example in the opening paragraph. There is no need to write down specific details here.

P3: Auth: mod ideas in The Tempest

With all this in mind, are we really to believe that neither Shakespeare nor anyone who saw the play in London in 1611 was reminded of the colonial enterprise that England was then undertaking in America? Who is making the implausible claim?

How can we identify the author’s conclusion?

The author used rhetorical questions to indicate a concluding thought.

What is the author’s conclusion?

Those who saw the play in London were reminded of England’s actions in America.

P4: Auth: conserv making implaus claim

Question Analysis

This is a Function question that is asking how the author uses a particular detail in the structure of the passage. “Richard Hakluyt” was mentioned in paragraph 2, which should be the focus of our Investigate step.

Much of this paragraph consisted of examples of authors who were writing about topics that didn’t have words for them yet. Answer choice (A) is correct.

While Shakespeare does appear in paragraph 1, the author doesn’t suggest that Hakluyt and Shakespeare are contemporaries, making (B) a Faulty Use of Detail answer choice.

(C) is an Extreme answer choice; Hakluyt didn’t invent colonialism, he just described it in his writing.

(D) is an Opposite answer choice: Bartolomé de las Casas and Hakluyt were used in the same paragraph as examples of people who condemned colonialism and imperialism.

This is a Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) question because it asks for the evidence used for a given conclusion. We know the conservative critics see Shakespeare as a timeless, “universal” playwright and not one whose themes are about only a specific time. The conservative argument in paragraph 1 hinges on the claim that the terms “colonialism” and “imperialism” did not exist yet, and therefore it would be “anachronistic to suppose that Shakespeare had them in mind.”

(A) fits perfectly with the prediction and is the correct answer.

(B), (C), and (D) can be eliminated quickly because they do not come from paragraph 1, the only place where the conservatives’ view is given any support. These answer choices come from paragraphs 2 and 3, which are not used to support the conservative view.

This is an Other Reasoning Within the Text question. The “implausible claim” is discussed in Paragraph 1, but the author’s response to that claim is discussed in the rest of the passage. By looking at our outline, we can see that the author thought those modern ideas already existed and gave examples to support that theory. In fact, the author focuses most of the passage on critiquing the argument from the first paragraph, centering around his assertion that the ideas already existed even if the words did not.

(A) sounds like the conservative critics and is inconsistent with the author’s central argument. This choice should be eliminated.

The words all and ubiquitous indicate that (B) is an Extreme answer choice and should be approached with caution. For an Extreme answer choice to be correct, the author must hold an extreme viewpoint, which this author does not.

This answer choice is very close to our prediction from the Investigate step and uses moderate language. Therefore, (C) is the correct answer choice.

(D) implies that older stories do not have thematic elements at all. This idea is inconsistent with the author’s argument that “colonialism” and “imperialism” are present in The Tempest.

While this question uses the word purpose and it may feel like a Main Idea question at first blush, it’s actually asking about the function of the East and West Indies in building the author’s argument. Approach this question by locating the reference in the passage and either recalling or reading the sentence before and after it. It’s stated in the passage that “all the great powers of Europe were competing for the[ir] wealth” and “the building of empires—was an issue of keen concern in England in the early 17th century.”

(A) is a Faulty Use of Detail answer choice. The most successful publishing venture of Elizabethan England mentioned in the passage was “Hakluyt’s Voyages, a series of published accounts of European explorations in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.”

There is no reference to Shakespeare witnessing firsthand the colonialism that is referenced in The Tempest; (B) is an Out Of Scope answer choice.

(C) is closest to our investigation of the paragraph surrounding the mention of the East and West Indies and is the correct choice.

(D) This is an Extreme answer choice; while the Europeans were involved in colonialism and imperialism, it is never implied that everywhere the Europeans traveled was a place they colonized.

This is another Strengthen–Weaken (Within the Passage) question. The author’s idea throughout the passage is that even though the words colonialism and imperialism did not exist, these themes were still present in The Tempest. Therefore, the fact that these words “were not coined yet” is consistent with—but does not strengthen or weaken— the author’s argument.

(A), (B), and (C) can be eliminated immediately because they state that the author’s argument would be strengthen[ed] or weaken[ed].

The prediction—that the author’s argument is neither strengthened nor weakened—matches (D).

Practice Questions

Passage 1 (Questions 1–6)

It would be difficult to overstate the complexity of the Japanese language. The system of writing (or more properly, systems) represents a fusion of almost entirely foreign characters and a spoken language so linguistically isolated that philologists have yet to discover a precursor. Not unlike many other ancient languages, Japan lacked any system of writing at all for much of its history. Making up for lost time, though, no fewer than three different systems of writing are now employed.

The first Japanese system of writing was not Japanese. The kanji, a group of logographic Chinese characters, each representing a word or idea, were adopted with minimal change around the seventh century. Few languages are so geographically close yet linguistically dissimilar. As a result, the Japanese adopted a modified Chinese pronunciation for each kanji (the on-yomi), while retaining the native Japanese spoken word that most closely fit each kanji’s meaning (the kun-yomi). In modern Japanese, the on-yomi is used for certain kanji and the kun-yomi for others, with compound words often involving both. Further adding to the confusion, the Chinese language contains many words in which variations in tone alone indicate drastically different meanings. The adaptation of these words to Japanese pronunciation led to a number of homophones that has, without hyperbole, been called “embarrassing” and “alarming” by scholars of the language.

The hiragana syllabary was developed in the eighth century by court women, who were not permitted to study kanji because they were deemed unfit to master its complexities. In response, they developed a simplified, flowing form of the kanji that represented all the sounds in spoken Japanese. Hiragana is phonetic rather than logographic and is therefore far more accessible to a foreign learner than the kanji. Because Japanese is an open language, most consonants cannot be expressed by themselves. Hiragana is therefore not strictly an alphabet. Katakana came about around the same time as hiragana, also as an attempt to simplify the kanji. The sparse, angular characters correspond fairly closely to the hiragana and, as befitting their origin among Buddhist monks, have a look generally considered more masculine than hiragana, which was originally called onnade, or “women’s hand.” The katakana have essentially become the print counterparts of the “cursive” hiragana.

With so many systems jostling for position, each used more or less independently of the other, it would not be unreasonable to anticipate that a national movement toward systematization of the language would settle on a single one. A national movement was in fact started after World War II: a radical idea encouraging the use of all three systems together. A glance at any Tokyo newspaper will reveal kanji used to represent most standard actions and ideas, hiragana to indicate grammatical inflections and tenses, and katakana to represent adopted foreign and technical words, as well as to indicate emphasis. The use of the three systems has become sufficiently standardized in this way that deviations often lend a piece of writing strong connotations. A piece written entirely in katakana, for example, may be disconcerting to a modern reader and may have a vaguely pre–World War II military air to it, much as a piece written all in capital letters with telegraph punctuation might in English. While such a complex system has made the language’s learning curve high for native speakers and foreigners alike, it has also contributed to a stunning richness of expression such that any list of world’s great works of art a hundred years from now will have to be written partially in kanji, hiragana, and katakana.

Answers follows on next page.

Practice Answers

Passage 1 (Questions 1–6) Sample Highlighting P1. “linguistically isolated”; P2. “Chinese character”; P3. “Hiragana is phonetic” and “simplify the kanji”; P4. “sufficiently standardized” and “richness.”

Sample Outlining P1. Japanese language and writing complex: at least 3 systems

P2. Chinese (logographic) introduced = kanji; on-yomi vs. kun-yomi

P3. Syllabic/phonetic: hiragana (feminine, script) vs. katakana (masculine, print)

P4. Post-WWII: All three combined and systematized, different uses for each

1. C

For this Function question, start with where kanji are mentioned. Kanji appears in paragraph 2, where the author says that the adaptation of Chinese words with variations in tone to Japanese resulted in lots of homophones. The function of including kanji is to introduce the idea that Japanese came from the Chinese and doesn’t have as many variations in tone as Chinese does. (C) fits this prediction. While (B) may be a true statement, it is not related to kanji and is a Faulty Use of Detail answer choice. (D) is an Opposite; it is the loss of “variations in tone” as words moved from Japanese to Chinese that led to the formation of homophones. As for (A), the author specifically stated that “Few languages are so geographically close yet linguistically dissimilar,” so we know that pronunciations must be very different.

2. B

This is a Main Idea question, so predict using the author’s overall goal established during your Distill step: to examine the origins and complexity of three Japanese writing systems. Only (B) involves both the origins and complexity of the language. Notice that we can use a vertical scan of the first words of the answers to eliminate (A) and (C) because the author is neutral and does not make any strong argu[ments] or propos[als]. As for (D), the author discussed the origins of Japanese only— not multiple logographic writing systems—and, even then, this answer choice is too narrow as it addresses the author’s purpose only in paragraph 2.

3. A

This is an Apply question asking for an example of a text that would NOT likely be written entirely in katakana. Where does the author discuss the uses of writing in katakana? Referring back to the passage (or recalling if you used the Interrogate method for distilling the passage), we find that it is introduced in paragraph 3 and that the modern approach of using all three systems together—including katakana—is described in paragraph 4. There, the author writes that katakana is used to “represent adopted foreign and technical words, as well as to indicate emphasis” and that a piece written entirely in katakana “may be disconcerting to a modern reader and would have a pre–World War II military air” to it. Based on this information, (B) and (D) can immediately be eliminated. (C) can also be eliminated based on the description of the origins of katakana in paragraph 3: both hiragana and katakana appear around the eighth century, and katakana specifically “origin[ated] among Buddhist monks.” The answer must, therefore, be (A), which makes sense: a modern piece of literature would be expected to combine all three writing systems.

4. C

For this Inference question of the Implication subtype, start with where open languages are mentioned. Paragraph 2 states that “because Japanese is an open language, most consonants cannot be expressed by themselves.” It also points out that hiragana (and, by extension, katakana) is “not strictly an alphabet,” but rather a “syllabary.” Taking these pieces of information together, we can determine that open languages must express consonants together with vowels and that the language is built on these consonant–vowel combinations (syllables). (C) reflects this idea, highlighting the syllabic nature of the language. While the author does not specifically state that vowels end syllables in Japanese, the two Japanese terms given in the paragraph—hiragana and katakana—both demonstrate this pattern. (D) is a Distortion because although the author does say that consonants are not often used by themselves, there is no mention that they are few in number overall. While (A) describes the Japanese language, it does not reflect the author’s use of the more general term “open languages.” Finally, (B) is a literal use of the word open and does not fit the context described by the author.

5. A

The word inferred shows that this is an Inference question. The Buddhist monks who developed katakana are highlighted in paragraph 3. Let’s review the main points: katakana was created by “Buddhist monks” and looks “more masculine than hiragana.” The author also notes that hiragana was developed by women and was known as “women’s hand.” Given the contrast between katakana and hiragana on the basis of gender, we can infer that katakana looks masculine because it was developed by men. (A) must therefore accurately describe this group of Buddhist monks. While (C) might look tempting, we know only that the women who developed hiragana were “considered unfit to master the complexities of kanji.” The author never stated anything similar about the monks who developed katakana, so we cannot make that inference. In the last paragraph, the author points out that katakana now has a “vague … military air” to it for the modern reader, but that does not mean that the monks who created katakana were closely involved with the military of the time.

6. C

This is a Strengthen–Weaken question asking for a claim in the passage that lacks evidence. Note that all four answer choices are sentences taken verbatim from the passage. For this question, we will have to address each answer choice as we look for evidence that supports the claim. The “first Japanese system of writing,” (A), was addressed in paragraph 2. Immediately following this sentence, the description of “kanji” is given—which is that “first … system of writing.” Therefore, this answer choice can be eliminated. The use of “three systems” and the effects of “deviations” from the standardized approach are detailed in paragraph 4; the subsequent “piece written entirely in katakana” is evidence to support this claim, eliminating (B). (C) is mentioned at the end of paragraph 1, but that’s all the information we get about the Japanese language before writing systems were developed. This answer is therefore correct. Finally, (D) is supported by the sentence that immediately precedes it, which describes the “sparse, angular characters” of katakana as counterparts to the hiragana.

← Question Types I: Foundations of Compreh All chapters Question Types III: Reasoning Beyond the →