imskpwr wrote:DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Yeah, that appears to be a reasonable understanding of how passages on the GMAT operate. It's also helpful to be primed to recognize that certain structural markers indicate that the author is about to present her own opinion, which will often contradict a notion that someone else has professed. For example: Professor Horkins published his study regarding the importance of lower marginal tax rates in 1987, however, more recent, higher quality work has since undermined those conclusions.
Thanks a lot. That was quite a relief.
Considering the point u raised, I understand that such structural markers indicate a change in POV( often one of them will be of AUTHOR). On such occassions, I usually check how the POV is related to the main point.
However when these structural markers indicate a change in FACTS, do I have to understand the implications/Inferences from such change?
Generally, I have seen that descriptive passages that lacks an explicit main idea have their main idea dependent upon these factual changes.
Typically, these passages will operated according to following structure/logic.
1) Traditionally, people believed 'x' was true.
2) However, recent studies have revealed 'y,' which contradicts x.'
3) An explanation for the above.
This is all to say that you're right - it's crucial to understand the impact it has on the passage when a long-accepted hypothesis (or perceived fact) is overturned. And paragraph 3 could go a number of ways. It's possible that the explanation will somehow reconcile the two hypotheses so that they merely appear to contradict each other, but are complementary in a surprising way. But it's also possible that the explanation will reveal additional evidence substantiating claim 'y.' Mostly, you want to be able to use transitions and structural clues to develop an intuitive sense of when the thrust of the passage shifts, and then be prepared for a variety of potential interpretations of what the shifts mean in terms of the passage's main idea.