Reading Comprehension

I need short explanations about these key words frequently used in RC main idea questions

1. evaluate: what is author exactly doing in the passage if correct RC answer says he evaluates? there may be few key things author may be doing when we say he evaluates...after some research, I found that when discusses positives and negatives of a particular thing, we can say author evaluates but not sure if thats true...such short briefs for each key word really help me.

2. analyze: whats difference between analyze and evaluate?

3. implications of research finding

4. argue against/argue in favour: does argue means harsh criticism or does it have some another meaning...

5. call into question

6. examine

7. reconcile

any one, may be you can comment on any thing you know, may not respond to all key words

Plz respond

Ron, you are the best!! Many thanks

Seventeenth-century
philosopher John Locke
stated that as much as
Line 99 percent of the value of
(5) any useful product can be
attributed to "the effects of
labor." For Locke's intellec-
tual heirs it was only a short
step to the "labor theory of
(10) value," whose formulators
held that 100 percent of the
value of any product is gen-
erated by labor (the human
work needed to produce
(15) goods) and that therefore the
employer who appropriates
any part of the product's
value as profit is practicing
theft.
(20) Although human effort is
required to produce goods
for the consumer market,
effort is also invested in
making capital goods (tools,
(25) machines, etc.), which are
used to facilitate the produc-
tion of consumer goods. In
modern economies about
one-third of the total output of
(30) consumer goods is attribut-
able to the use of capital
goods. Approximately two-
thirds of the income derived
from this total output is paid
(35) out to workers as wages and
salaries, the remaining third
serving as compensation
to the owners of the capital
goods. Moreover, part
(40) of this remaining third is
received by workers who
are shareholders, pension
beneficiaries, and the like.
The labor theory of value
(45) systematically disregards
the productive contribution of
capital goods-- a failing for
which Locke must bear part
of the blame.

The author of the passage is primarily concerned with
A. criticizing Locke's economic theories
B. discounting the contribution of labor in a modern economy
C. questioning the validity of the labor theory of value
D. arguing for a more equitable distribution of business profits
E. contending that employers are overcompensated for capital goods

took time to decide between A and C? ( particularly due to last paragraph)

I wanted to know,

1. what is difference between "criticize" and "call into question"?

2. In GMAT RCs, How does the author normally criticize some one else's theories? will he give loop holes of the theory or some bad opinion?

3. Is this correct structure of RC?

Para 1: Desribe Locke's theory. Describe incorrect adapation of L's theory "Labour theory of value"

Para 2: Give evidence to show failure of Labour theory in one aspect, thereby blaming Locke.



Source: Other forums. Kindly excuse if we are not allowed to share RCs from other forums.

Stacey Koprince wrote:Received a PM asking me to respond. Please remember to cite the source (author) of the text; then, I'll be happy to respond!

stacy I am not sure who PMed but I would like to clairfy source: I have take this question from some other forums

https://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-reading ... ur-rc.html

If you find source doubtful, Kindly answer my questions which are independent of the passage anyways.

1. what is difference between "criticize" and "call into question"?

2. In GMAT RCs, How does the author normally criticize some one else's theories? will he give loop holes of the theory or some bad opinion?

Stacey Koprince wrote:FYI: another forum is a location, not a source. A source is the author of the question. That's the difference between saying, "I found this book at my local library" and "The book was written by James Joyce."

So, I'll just address your questions generally, as you suggested.

Criticizing someone or some idea means that the author actually thinks the person or idea is wrong / misguided and the author believes something else to be a better idea.

Calling some idea into question means that the author is questioning whether this idea is true, but the author is not necessarily saying that he thinks that idea is wrong - he's just not sure it's right.

And that difference should also give you an idea about your second question - does the author say something like "X is the mainstream theory, but that doesn't take into account these other things. Y is a better theory because it does take into account these other things?" That's criticizing X - he thinks X is wrong. Or does the author say "X is the mainstream theory, but that doesn't take into account these other things. Maybe there's a better theory or maybe theory X just hasn't figured out how to explain these other things yet?" That's calling X into question - he's not sure it's wrong, but he's also not sure it's right.

ya I saw your comment about location and source in SC area, Many thanks for your comments! Highly appreciate your inputs.

Stacey Koprince wrote: Criticizing someone or some idea means that the author actually thinks the person or idea is wrong / misguided and the author believes something else to be a better idea.

Calling some idea into question means that the author is questioning whether this idea is true, but the author is not necessarily saying that he thinks that idea is wrong - he's just not sure it's right.

.

As I was trying to understand these terms, I have few follow up question

1. Can you define these terms in terms of evidence provided...I know for sure that when it is call into question- author will provide evidence against the particular idea? what does the author do in terms of evidence when he criticizes a particular idea?

2. when author blames some one, does he criticize or call into question?

GMATPrep RC Main Idea question 1

[spoiler]1. Please let me know why E is preferred to A.

2. also if the option A were "evaluate the amounts of damage caused by storms such as northeaster and hurricanes", would it be correct?

3. the amounts in option A refers to extent of damage and not loss in $ due to damage, what do you think?[/spoiler]

iamcste wrote:GMATPrep RC Main Idea question 1

[spoiler]1. Please let me know why E is preferred to A.

2. also if the option A were "evaluate the amounts of damage caused by storms such as northeaster and hurricanes", would it be correct?

3. the amounts in option A refers to extent of damage and not loss in $ due to damage, what do you think?[/spoiler]

I would try to answer your query here it goes .

(1)Option (A) says that evaluate the damage caused by different type of storms .

Now the question is a main idea question and different type of storms are only used as example to explain the complexity about the storm study .

So make a note that in main idea questions and example or an answer related to the example is never the correct answer .

This is the classic case where test makers lure you to choose the wrong answer .

Also If you just read the first para without looking at the clock and try to summarize it in your own words you will find that it only explains why certain type of storms are more studied .

Remember more often than not the first paragraph sets the tone and idea of the passage.

(2) . NO for the same reason because examples can never be the central idea of a passage.

(3) Losses in $ is never mentioned in the passage and thinking on those lines would certainly be out of the scope of passage.

Hope this helps.

Inference question is moved to a separate thread

https://www.beatthegmat.com/inference-qu ... 54658.html