-
sidceg
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:22 am
- Location: Bangalore, India
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
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
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
