Critical Reasoning

In Boldface questions and in some questions in the RC passages, abstract language is employed in the answer options. Now there are two things I should do: first, figure out what functions do the bold faced parts serve and second, find the answer choice, which is in abstract language, that matches the function I found out. This takes double the time to solve the question.

For example, let's consider the below question. (The point is not to solve the question for now but to show an example of abstract answer choices)

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it. That plan is ill-conceived: if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders. On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires. And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.

In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.

B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.

C. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.

D. The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument; the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument's advocacy of a particular strategy.

E. The first presents a goal that the argument endorses; the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.

How do I get comfortable with such language without getting exhausted by trying to figure out what each answer option actually means? And how can I reduce the time I spend in such questions?

TIA

How do I get comfortable with such language without getting exhausted by trying to figure out what each answer option actually means? And how can I reduce the time I spend in such questions?

This is a great question that you ask.

The point is to simplify the process instead of making it more complicated. One of the easiest ways to simplify is to focus on what you do know.

You have stated,

Now there are two things I should do: first, figure out what functions do the bold faced parts serve and second, find the answer choice, which is in abstract language, that matches the function I found out.

You have forgotten a couple of other things that can make this process less abstract.

* How does the bold portion relate to the conclusion (if there is one)?
* How do the two bold portions relate to each other?

I know that you said that the point is not the particular question, but it is in front of us and we can use this question to see how the abstract language really comes down to relationships.
For this argument, it is important to really see how the bold portions relate to the argument.

When looking at the bold portions of this argument I would say that the first portion is a goal and that the argument is trying to reach this goal. In between the bold portions is a plan that the argument rejects and the second bold portion is one of the two reasons to reject this plan.

With these relationships in mind the answers are much simpler to evaluate.

For example, the essence of answer choice A is not the abstract language but the fact that according to choice A, the first bold portion clashes with the conclusion of the argument, "The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived." You can actually stop right there, since we know that the argument is trying to achieve this goal.

If you stopped by just saying that the first portion is a goal then answer choice A would seem like a possible answer.

Choice B is also eliminated immediately. It says, "The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained" which is not true. The argument is trying to attain that goal.

Choice C is okay for the first statement, but what it says for the second statement, "the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion" is incorrect. The second portion indicates why one particular plan is not a good one, it does not dispute that the goal can be attained.

Choice D is consistent with everything we know about the argument. The first portion is a goal and strategies are evaluated and the second portion does give a reason why the argument advocates a certain strategy.

Choice E says "the first presents a goal that the argument endorses." This is actually not consistent with what we know. The argument does not endorse the goal, but rather discusses ways to achieve the goal. This way you get to skip trying to figure out what the rest of choice E means!

As you can see one of the least abstract things is how the portions relate to each other. Focus on those relationships and you can eliminate answer choices more efficiently.

Thank you David. That was really helpful