• 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

Doubt about making Passage Maps and Simple Stories

This forum is dedicated to our GMAT Avengers study group. Connect with fellow test takers and stay up-to-date with the latest Avengers' news. Experts are free to contribute in answering questions.
This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: 10 Feb 2020
Please ignore the question1 above, my doubt is about RC Strategy:

Is it neccessary to create Simple Story and Passage Map for better performance? I mean, I am from Engineering background and so technical language doesn't really scare me much. I actually feel much more comfortable reading these passages as they are written instead of making a Simple Story about them. Let me give you an example of what I mean:

You see, I was reading Manhattan RC 6th Edition book and in that they recommend creating a Simple Story and a Passage Map for each passage and this is how they recommend doing it:

>Try creating a map of this passage that you first saw in Chapter 1. Use any format you like as long as it reflects your simple story:
[align=justify][box_out][box_in]Recent research into antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains suggests the need for a reexamination of the frequency with which doctors prescribe antibacterial therapy. One study demonstrated, for example, that most minor bacterial infections will resolve without treatment within 5 to 14 days of onset of symptoms; a course of antibiotics might reduce that time frame by only 1 to 2 days. A second study indicated that the incidence of “superbugs,” which have resistance to a wide variety of antibacterial agents, is increasing significantly and that these bugs are more likely to spread among those who have been treated with antibiotics within the past 5 years. In particular, researchers have become alarmed by NDM-1 (New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase), which is not a single bacterial species, but a multiple-antibiotic-resistant enzyme capable of infecting other strains of bacteria.
It is true that the proliferation of superbugs likely owes a great deal to the mistaken prescription of antibacterial treatment for viral infections, against which such treatment is ineffective, and to the routine addition of antibiotics to livestock feed in order to increase meat yields. Additionally, it is possible that ongoing research into the means by which resistance spreads among bacterial communities may lead to a new generation of antibiotics to which bacteria are unable to develop resistance. Yet these factors do not change the need for individual physicians to be more circumspect about drug therapy when treating cases of true bacterial infection.[/box_in][/box_out][/align]

>Here is the Simple Story:
Something’s not quite right about how often doctors are prescribing antibiotics. Two studies support this idea: 1) in some cases, the drugs don’t really help, and 2) something about superbugs.
There are some other causes of these superbugs—prescribing antibiotics for infections isn’t the only problem—but it’s still the case that doctors have to be more careful about using these drugs even for legitimate reasons.

>Here’s one potential Passage Map for this story:
Problem: Doctors prescribe antibiotics a lot—too much?
1. Sometimes the drugs don’t even help!
2. Superbugs ↑ = bad
Other things cause superbugs, not just above
BUT doctors still have to be careful about prescribing these drugs


SO THE ISSUE IS THAT I FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE READING THE PASSAGE AS IT IS WRITTEN INSTEAD OF MAKING A SIMPLE STORY OF IT, WHICH ACCORDING TO ME SOUNDS LIKE A CHILD READING ENGINEERING BOOKS. MAKING THAT SIMPLE STORY DOESN'T COME NATURAL TO ME. IT TAKES MORE EFFORT TO MAKE THAT SIMPLE STORY INSTEAD OF JUST UNDERSTANDING THE PASSAGE AS IT IS WRITTEN.


BUT THEN THERE ARE SOME PASSAGES WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND IN THE FIRST READ, FOR EG:

Passage D: Pro-Drop Languages:
[align=justify][box_out][box_in]
In many so-called "pro-drop" or "pronoun-drop" languages, verbs inflect for number and person. In other words, by adding a prefix or suffix or by changing in some other way, the verb itself indicates whether the subject is singular or plural, as well as whether the subject is first person (/or we), second person (you), or third person (he, she, it, or they). For example, in Portuguese, which is at least partially a pro-drop language, the verb fato means "speak": the -o at the end of the word indicates first person, singular subject (as well as present tense). As a result, the subject pronoun eu, which means "I" in Portuguese, does not need to be used with falo except to emphasize who is doing the speaking.

It should be noted that not every language that drops its pronouns inflects its verbs. Neither Chinese nor Japanese verbs, for instance, change form at all to indicate number or person; however, personal pronouns are regularly omitted in both speech and writing, leaving the proper meaning to be inferred from contextual clues. Moreover, not every language that inflects its verbs drops subject pronouns in all non-emphatic contexts. Linguists argue about the pro-drop status of the Russian language, but there is no doubt that, although the Russian present-tense verb govoryu ("I speak") unambiguously indicates a first person, singular subject, it is common for Russian speakers to express "I speak" as ya govoryu, in which ya means "I," without indicating either emphasis or contrast. Nevertheless, Russian speakers do frequently drop subject and object pronouns; one study of adult and child speech indicated a pro-drop rate of 40-80%. Moreover, personal pronouns must in fact be dropped in some Russian sentences in order to convey particular meanings. It seems safe to conjecture that languages whose verbs inflect unambiguously for person and number permit pronoun dropping, if only under certain circumstances, in order to accelerate communication without loss of meaning. After all, in these languages, both the subject pronoun and the verb inflection convey the same information, so there is no real need both to include the subject pronoun and to inflect the verb.[/box_in][/box_out][/align]


BUT SUCH PASSAGES ARE RARE!

So my question is: DOES ANYONE ELSE FEEL THE SAME WAY? AND IF THEY DO, WHAT STRATEGY DO THEY ADOPT?

ps: sorry about the formatting; It's a mess.