BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

RC Main idea questions practice -GMATprep

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

RC Main idea questions practice -GMATprep

by iamcste » Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:25 pm
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
Last edited by iamcste on Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Reading Comprehension |
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:02 am
any one, may be you can comment on any thing you know, may not respond to all key words

Plz respond
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:58 pm
iamcste wrote: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?
"evaluate" usually means to make some sort of judgment.
"analyze", on the other hand, just means that you're supposed to delve into the reasons for, or the operation of, or the origins of, whatever the article is about.

for instance:
evaluate the effectiveness of this government program --> this means that you should tell whether the program was effective, and possibly to what degree.
analyze the effectiveness of this government program --> this means that you should explore the reasons why the program was effective (or not), and possibly also analyze the populations for whom it was most (or least) effective.
Last edited by lunarpower on Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:58 pm
3. implications of research finding
this would take her research finding, and then explore one or both of the following two types of implications:
(1) scientific facts for which this finding serves as evidence (or scientific hypotheses that are disproved by this evidence)
(2) the effect of this research finding on things like policy, laws, etc.
4. argue against/argue in favour: does argue means harsh criticism or does it have some another meaning...
heh. no, that's not what "argue" means in this context (i.e., it's not like arguing with your lover).

in this context, "argue" is simply the verb form of "argument". as you probably know from doing all this CR, an "argument" is absolutely any series of statements that is meant to make any point at all.
5. call into question
"call into question" is another way of saying "provide evidence against".
6. examine
not really any different from "analyze".
7. reconcile
this is basically the same thing as one of those CR questions that asks you to "resolve the paradox" or "explained the discrepancy".
"reconcile" means that you're supposed to take two seemingly contradictory statements and explain how they could both work at the same time.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:37 am
Ron, you are the best!! Many thanks
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:14 am
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.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:09 pm
Received a PM asking me to respond. Please remember to cite the source (author) of the text; then, I'll be happy to respond! :)
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:18 am
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?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:11 am
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.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:13 am
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:01 am
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?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:27 pm
We're getting into dangerous territory here - you're asking me for definite rules about something that is really about interpretation. So we can't just say "it'll always be this way," unfortunately.

I can't say, for example, that the author will ALWAYS provide evidence against the particular idea, but the author will somehow have to convey the fact that he thinks this theory or idea is not the best one. In these passages, the author will usually either provide evidence against the "wrong" idea or provide evidence for the "right" idea or both.

I can't think of an example in which an author is "blaming" someone, but I would generally think that, if the author is blaming someone for something, then that falls into the "criticism" category.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:50 pm
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]
Attachments
storms.jpg
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:15 am
Location: Nagpur , India
Thanked: 41 times
Followed by:1 members

by rockeyb » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:12 pm
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.
"Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess"
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:20 pm
Inference question is moved to a separate thread

https://www.beatthegmat.com/inference-qu ... 54658.html
Last edited by iamcste on Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply