Who Said What Now? Multiple Opinions on the GMAT
 |
Click here to read more articles from Kaplan and to learn more about Kaplan's GMAT classes. |
I remember the first “C” that I got in college. I had written what I thought was a compelling paper in an intro to poetry class. I carefully crafted a thesis about Walt Whitman’s state of mind when the famous poet wrote his seminal work Leaves of Grass, and I quoted many lines from this large volume of poems to make my case. However, my professor was a stickler for detail. “You can’t use verses of poetry alone to judge Whitman’s opinions,” she explained. “It’s a poem. The narrator, not Walt Whitman, speaks this line; we don’t know if these are Whitman’s views or just those of the character who’s speaking!”
The good news is that this separation of author and text isn’t necessary on the GMAT. In fact, academic texts like those you’ll see during Reading Comprehension and Critical Reasoning passages, are always considered to be written in the voice of the author, with no “narrating character” to worry about. But the error that I made on my paper about Leaves of Grass can still teach us a lesson. My mistake is an example of a common reading challenge: identifying and tracking multiple opinions in a single source.
GMAT passages, long or short, often mix other people’s views with those of the author. If you attribute someone else’s opinion to the author, or vice versa, you’re sure to lose points on questions pertaining to point of view. So when the GMAT presents a text with multiple voices or opinions, skilled test-takers know they must immediately ask, “Who said what?”
This principle applies regardless of whether we’re discussing poetry or particle physics. Conflicting interpretations of facts aren’t unique to poetry; even “hard” science can have varied opinions, as illustrated in this paragraph from a physics passage. As you decode this excerpt, figure out how many opinions there are, and who holds which view.
For centuries, the prevailing understanding of flame was that of the alchemists: fire was one of four fundamental elements of the universe, along with earth, wind, and water. This theory remained largely unquestioned until the theory of “phlogiston,” an invisible, intangible combusting agent, gained widespread acceptance in the 17th century. Modern scientists dismiss both of these theories as archaic and, on the basis of vastly superior evidence and technology, support the caloric theory on oxidization and combustion.
Quite a mouthful, huh? In addition to unfamiliar terminology, multiple opinions complicate this tangled history. If you counted correctly, you’ll have found four perspectives: those of the alchemists, the phlogistonians, modern scientists, and the author. Bear in mind that you can’t assume that author has an opinion at all! Some of the most challenging passages on the GMAT involve the writer comparing or presenting the viewpoints of others without ever passing judgment of his or her own. But in this case, when modern scientists are described as having “vastly superior evidence,” we are given a subtle but clear indicator that the author has taken a side. So, our notes for this paragraph should look something like this:
Alch.: fire = 1 of 4 elems.
17th c.: fire = phlog.
Scientists: fire = caloric. Auth agrees
These notes are short and sweet—we must be able to write them quickly and read them with a glance or we’ll fall behind in the Verbal section’s tough pacing—but we identify all of the different perspectives, along with whose perspectives they are. So when we see the question stem “The author’s view of phlogiston is most likely,” we know the author does NOT think that fire is caused by an invisible substance that starts with P. Someone thinks it is, but not the author!
Tracking views is important throughout the verbal section. In today’s question of the week, you’ll see how it applies to Critical Reasoning as well. Read the question stem carefully, so you know which of two opposing views you are supposed to deconstruct. Ask yourself “who said what,” and good luck!
Question of the day
Several people have died while canoeing during high water on a nearby river in recent years. The local police have proposed a ban on canoeing when the river reaches flood stage. Opponents of the ban argue that the government should ban an activity only if it harms people other than those who willingly participate in the activity, and they therefore conclude that the proposed ban on high-water canoeing is unwarranted.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the opponents’ conclusion?
(A) Sailboats are not allowed on a nearby lake when winds exceed 50 miles per hour.
(B) Several other local governments have imposed similar bans on other rivers.
(C) Several police officers have been seriously injured while trying to rescue canoeists who were stranded on the river while attempting to canoe during high water.
(D) More canoeists drown while canoeing rivers at normal water levels than while canoeing rivers at high water levels.
(E) Statistics provided by the U.S. National Park Service show that fewer people drown on rivers with high-water canoeing bans than on rivers without such bans.
Answer
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The stem contains the obvious keyword “weakens,” but it also asks us to weaken the opponents’ conclusion specifically. Keep this in mind—there may be more than one argument in the stimulus.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
The opponents of the ban on canoeing during flood stage conclude that such a ban is unwarranted if the only people harmed by the activity are those who consent to engage in it. In other words, the opponents propose that the local police lift the ban.
Step 3: Predict the Answer
To weaken this proposal, you need an answer that explains why this proposal should, on its own terms, not be enacted. Use this model prediction: “something that explains why the ban on high-water canoeing should not be lifted, even though the government should not ban activities that harm only willing participants.” (note that this prediction strongly suggests a more refined one: “something that explains how high-water canoeing does harm people who are not willing participants.”) so if we find an answer choice suggesting that canoeing during flood stage harms people other than those who have chosen to canoe, the opponents’ conclusion will be weakened.
Step 4: Evaluate the Choices
(C) offers such a suggestion by stating that police officers, none of whom consented to expose themselves to the dangers of canoeing in high water, were in fact harmed as a result of the existence of such canoeing. (A) tries to provide a “parallel” situation (sailboats on a lake), but we don’t know that the sailboats are banned on the lake on windy days because people who didn’t choose to sail are being harmed when people sail in winds above 50 miles per hour. And just because, as (B) says, other governments have also enacted the bans doesn’t mean that the bans are necessarily reasonable. The opponents might still have a valid argument. (D) offers an irrelevant comparison: that more canoeists drown while the river is at normal levels may simply be due to the fact that there are more canoeists at that time to begin with. That has no bearing on whether canoeing should be banned at high water levels. And (E)might be tempting, but it doesn’t show that the opponents’ proposal to abolish the ban won’t work on its own terms. (E) doesn’t give an example of people who aren’t choosing to go high-water canoeing but who are nonetheless harmed by it. Choice (C) is the correct answer.
Written by Eli Meyer, Kaplan GMAT Instructor.
