improve gmat rc
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
1/70
How to AceReading Comprehensi
An e-GMAT Live Session
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
2/70
3 PARTS TO THIS WEBINAR
The Company
The People
12 minutes 100 minutes
RCStrategies
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
3/70
e-GMATthe company
- Sept2011 to help non-natives
- 6600+ customers and counting
- More non native reviews than
any other test prep company.
- Learning person
- Engage all three
vision, auditory)
- Hire the best and brightest
- Full time dedication
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
4/70
More non-native success sto
250
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
5/70
Most # of debriefs
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
6/70
Real Reviews
Check them out!!
Real People = True Reviews
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
7/70
About e-GMAT Faculty
99+ percentile on
many exams
including
GMAT
Top Ranker in CBSE
Top ranker in BITS Pilani
Best Expert on GC
PastHT editor
98 percentile on GMAT
5 years of GMAT
teaching experience
Guest lecturer at IIT
Madras
10+ years of GMAT
teaching experience
1. Learning 2. Teaching Excellence 3. Customer Success
750 in 1 Week
IESE Spain, GSB
Chicago
760, IS
Author
Advant
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
8/70
About e-GMAT Faculty1. Voted Best Presenter in GMATClubs 1 Million post events.
Twice as many excellent ratings as the closest contestant.
2. Published more articles on GMATClubs Verbal forum than every other te
combined.
3. Member of the month for 2012.
4. Every oneFull Time on e-GMAT
5523
718
9
0 20 40 60
e-GMAT
GMAT Pill
Princeton
1 MM Best PresenterCompetition
High Ratings
1.
2.
3.
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
9/70
2 Kinds of courses
Verbal Online Verbal Live Prep
Worlds most comprehensiveOnline course
Worlds most comprehensiveLive course
VLP = VO
+ 3 Work
Improve
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
10/70
July Batch Calendar
1. More comprehensive than any other course
2. All Live Sessions take place on weekends
3. 7:00 am Pacific = 7:30 PM IST
Things to note
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
11/70
Buy OnceAttend Multiple batches
1. Current Batch July 18
2. Next Batch Aug 9
3. Following Batch Aug 30
Join now and attend Multiple batNew batch starts every 20 days (Aug 9
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
12/70
Verbal Live Prep provides more of eve
YES-
-
5
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
13/70
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
14/70
Tell us about your RC approach
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
15/70
Passage 1
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those they w
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
16/70
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those they w
object of regulation were automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and impl
identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that c
decent person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be atavistic and warped
educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce ra
cars to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police, and those special ind
or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have insisted on using over the papromoting any kind of control proposalno matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pej
advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while inebriated. Because these advocates
inherently wrong, they do not believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reas
interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Sch
Horne, Rep. Fortney Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve respect
ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifesta
or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National Institute of Justice by the S
Research Institute. From that literature a study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gu
and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both human and otherwise."
is tantamount to bigotryfor it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that inform it the only policy
generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is th
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby effectively uses that rhetoric to
gun control is synonymous with "disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this
proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if their agenda is entirely inspired by t
gun is morally wrong.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
A di t d
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
17/70
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentiallyindistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation wereautomobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale andimplications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decentperson would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must beatavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensingand car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of carsto ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalnomatter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. Forthese advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it whileinebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do notbelieve that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitledto any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. FortneyStark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserverespect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the NationalInstitute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature astudy derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocentcreatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryforit has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views thatinform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains themost important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of somany gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobbyeffectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is reallywhat all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as iftheir agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
According to some advocacontrol, people own guns
owning guns ultimately leads to gadequacy.
gun owners just want to adjust whence they make a choice that is
guns are weapons that make peopor perverse.
guns have power that can be usedindulge in crimes such as sexual mfrom their sexual inadequacy.
owning guns is a decision that is aabnormal behavior.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
Wh t i th th i
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
18/70
y g y y pp yindistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation wereautomobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale andimplications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decentperson would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must beatavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensingand car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of carsto ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalnomatter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. Forthese advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it whileinebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do notbelieve that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitledto any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. FortneyStark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserverespect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the NationalInstitute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature astudy derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocentcreatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryforit has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views thatinform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains themost important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of somany gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobbyeffectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is reallywhat all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as iftheir agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
What is the authors mainbehind writing the passag
The author seeks to warn gun-conagenda, although well-meaning alead to gun-owners buying more gadvocates wrong.
The author wants to advocate hownot always uncalled for as it is in tpolice, and those special individuapolice select to receive permits.
The author wants to criticize the acontrol advocates on the basis thatheir estimate of the motivations o
The author intends to put forth thargument proposed by the gun-coclarifying how this argument has l
merits of their agenda.
The author puts forth his progreshighlighting how a few gun-controinfringements of the rights of gun
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially Each of the following can
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
19/70
y g y y pp yindistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation wereautomobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale andimplications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decentperson would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must beatavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensingand car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of carsto ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalnomatter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. Forthese advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it whileinebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do notbelieve that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitledto any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. FortneyStark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserverespect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the NationalInstitute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature astudy derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocentcreatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryforit has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views thatinform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains themost important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of somany gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobbyeffectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is reallywhat all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as iftheir agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
Each of the following can from the passage EXCEPT
Some gun-control advocates look lacking mental abilities to take pro
Some gun-control activists are of gun is very similar to driving a car
Some gun-control advocates do nover the possession of guns inter
to freedom.
There are some gun-control proporely on taking away guns from gu
Gun owners show excessive emotover possession of guns.
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
20/70
GENERAL CONSENSUS ABOUT RC
While SC and CR can be taught,
RC cannot be taught
The only way to improve RC byreading more. Hence, read
novels, books. As you improve
your reading, your ability in RC
improves.
Assumption: Reading cannot be
taught..i.e. there are no tools that
can help you become a better
reader.
40 YEARS BACK
Process Variations are a
part of manufacturing.
Variations reduce (erro
as workers become mor
Workers become more s
experience.
Process variations 10K
THEN
Process variations are d
wrong approach to proc
Process variations redu
1M
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
21/70
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
22/70
Wh d l f lt i RC?
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
23/70
Why do people falter in RC?
CommDo not know how to
approach the questionCannot comprehend the
passage
Not an active reader
Passage is of unfamiliar topic
Difficult vocabulary in the
passage
Complicated sentences
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
24/70
The Improvement Triangle
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
25/70
The Improvement Triangle
1. BeliefIn the methods that will
lead to success
2. Behavior
Work to improve your skills
in applying the methods
3. DesireStay focused while
applying
Success
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those they w
b f l b l d h l k l d ff h l d l
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
26/70
object of regulation were automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and impl
identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that c
decent person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be atavistic and warped
educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce ra
cars to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police, and those special ind
or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have insisted on using over the pa
promoting any kind of control proposalno matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pej
advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while inebriated. Because these advocates
inherently wrong, they do not believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reas
interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Sch
Horne, Rep. Fortney Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve respect
ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifesta
or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National Institute of Justice by the S
Research Institute. From that literature a study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gu
and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both human and otherwise."
is tantamount to bigotryfor it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that inform it the only policy
generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is th
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby effectively uses that rhetoric to
gun control is synonymous with "disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this
proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if their agenda is entirely inspired by t
gun is morally wrong.
It is a truism to say that gun owners
Gun owners hysterically oppo
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
27/70
It is a truism to say that gun owners
hysterically oppose controls that are
essentially indistinguishable from those
they would readily support if the object of
regulation were automobiles and not guns.
Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences
in the rationale and implications for
applying identical control mechanisms tofirearms and to cars.
Passage about Gunsowning
Author may present view points
Pro- gun
Anti-gun
Or both
Gun owners hysterically oppo
controls that are similar
that they would s
if cars wer
instead of
YetChange in D
Guns and cars are different
So the basis for controls on
So gun owners are justified
approach to such controls
- gun owners
Above all, automobile regulation is not
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
28/70
, g
premised on the idea that cars are evils from
which any decent person would recoil in
horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such
an awful thing must be atavistic and warped
sexually, intellectually, educationally, and
ethically. Nor are driver licensing and car
registration proposed or implemented as ways
to reduce radically the availability of cars to
ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal
of denying cars to all but the military, police,
and those special individuals whom the military
or police select to receive permits.
Above allSame Dir
Explains how the reason behin
different from the reason behin
Nor are
Same Direction (previous sentenc
Explains that purpose of car co
from the purpose of gun contro
Infer the meaning from th
Premise of car regulation is d
premise of gun regulation
Per passagecar regulation i
the stated idea that actually pe
They are evil. Any one
awful thing is a disturb
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
29/70
oppose controls that are essentially
indistinguishable from those they would readily
support if the object of regulation were automobiles
and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial
differences in the rationale and implications for
applying identical control mechanisms to firearms
and to cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not
premised on the idea that cars are evils from which
any decent person would recoil in horrorthat
anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must
be atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually,
educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing
and car registration proposed or implemented as
ways to reduce radically the availability of cars to
ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of
denying cars to all but the military, police, and those
special individuals whom the military or police
select to receive permits.
Yes gun owners have opp
similar controls for guns
But their difference in vie
this double standard is ju
The basis for contro
The purpose of cont
- gun owners
But those are the terms many prominent andBut Chan
ge in Dire
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
30/70
y p
highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in
promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be
when presented in less pejorative terms. For
these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous
not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun
ownership as inherently wrong, they do not
believe that banning guns implicates any issue
of freedom of choice.
ButChange in Dire
terms refer to the argument in
He introduces a group called
gun control advocates = G
Detail Informatio
PurposeIrrespective of the w
phrase their argument, the crux
same.
Infer the meaning from the
GCA think that guns are bad.
So when they compare owning
a car in certain conditionthat certainly not a responsible cond
BecauseSome cause and eff
GCA consider gun ownership W
Banning guns does not hamper
Nor, for the same reason, do they think that theNor Same Directi
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
31/70
interests and desires of those who own, or want
to own, guns are entitled to any consideration.
For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van
Horne, Rep. Fortney Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers,
and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of
gun owners deserve respect or consideration,
on the ground that gun ownership cannot
involve real choice because, they argue, it is
actually only a preconditioned manifestation of
sexual inadequacy or perversion.
NorSame Directi
(they do not believe in previo
Since GCA regard gun ownersh
do not think that gun owners are
consideration.
Detail Information
Names of people who are GCA.
GCA use the same argument to supp
GCA consider owning a gun same a
GCA consider owing a gun WRON
For instanceExam Author will expand on the idea p
what kind of consideration
Infer the meaning from the CONT owning guns is bad.
Gun owners do not actually mak
owning or not owning guns.
It happens automatically becaus
reasons (sexual inadequacy and
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gunIn fact adds along same
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
32/70
control literature was conducted for the
National Institute of Justice by the Social and
Demographic Research Institute. From that
literature a study derived the following
description of the way anti-gun advocates see
gun ownersas "demented and blood-thirsty
psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain
death on innocent creatures, both human and
otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is
tantamount to bigotryfor it has no empirical
basis in fact.
In fact adds along same
Author presented GCA views o
Now he presents literature findi
Study presented view of gun ow
anti-gun advocates (AGA)
Gun owners are horrible
Authors view of AGAAGA view is baselessno empirica
AGA view of gun owners presented
Per the author, AGA view is baseles
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control Of course Authors V
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
33/70
scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that inform it the
only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-
gun rhetoric remains the most important feature of the
public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gunrhetoric of so many gun control advocates that plays
into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby
effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners
that gun control is synonymous with "disarmament,"
because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it
appear as if this is really what all proponents of gun
control have in mind when they propose any regulation
and as if their agenda is entirely inspired by the
conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
Of course Author s V
Not all controls call for disarmame
ButChange in Di
Anti-gun views are most popular in
Explains how gun lobby uses the a
GCA against GCA.
Not all controls are anti-gun
But anti-gun views are most popula
gun control as gun lobby use these
advantage.
ForPresents re
Anti-gun views are most popular in
because these views of GCA are use
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those
they would readily support if the object of regulation were automobiles and not guns Yet this irony overlooks
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
34/70
they would readily support if the object of regulation were automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks
crucial differences in the rationale and implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to
cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent person
would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be atavistic and warped sexually,
intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing and car registration proposed or implemented
as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars
to all but the military, police, and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have insisted on using over
the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposal no matter how moderate and defensible itmight be when presented in less pejorative terms. For these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to
owning a car but to driving it while inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently
wrong, they do not believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled to any
consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and
Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve respect or consideration, on the ground that gun
ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of
sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National Institute of Justice by
the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a study derived the following description of
the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas "demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun
is to rain death on innocent creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to
bigotryfor it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that inform it the only
policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the most important feature of the public
debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so many gun control advocates that plays into the hands
of their opponents. The gun lobby effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is
synonymous with "disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if their agenda is
entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
Gun owners have o
similar controls for
Their difference in
The basis for control
The purpose of contr
GCA use the same a
all controls.
GCA consider owni
driving a car badly.
GCA consider owing
Introduces an argument against gun owners
Shows how the argument is not justified
AGA view of gun ow
study of literature Per the author, AGA
Not all controls are
But anti-gun views
the debate over gun
lobby use these vie
advantage.
Introduces the groupGCA - that proposed the argument
Presents the views of GCA
Presents views of another categoryAGA of GCAStates that such views are baseless.
Reasons out why AG views overpower all GCA views
Shows how gun lobby uses AG views against GCA
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentiallyindistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation wereautomobiles and not guns Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
According to some advoca
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
35/70
automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale andimplications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decentperson would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must beatavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensingand car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of carsto ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates haveinsisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. Forthese advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it whileinebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do notbelieve that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitledto any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. FortneyStark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserverespect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the NationalInstitute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature astudy derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocentcreatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryforit has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views thatinform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains themost important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of somany gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobbyeffectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is reallywhat all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as iftheir agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
control, people own guns
owning guns ultimately leads to gadequacy.
gun owners just want to adjust whence they make a choice that is
guns are weapons that make peopor perverse.
guns have power that can be usedindulge in crimes such as sexual mfrom their sexual inadequacy.
owning guns is a decision that is aabnormal behavior.
Detail QuestionGlobal detail since the views of GCA have been presented at multiple places Use POE to find the an
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
36/70
CORRECT Reword of following statement in...gun ownership cannot involve real ch
it is actually only a preconditioned man
inadequacy orperversion
Out of ContextPassage does not say anything asexual inadequacy.
iSWATUses similar termsBut in different context
Out of ScopeThe author has not touched on thmotivation to adjust better in the
iSWATPer the GCA gun ownership is of sexual inadequacy. This choice
relationship
Global detail since the views of GCA have been presented at multiple places. Use POE to find the an
owning guns ultimately leads to getting rid of sexualadequacy.
gun ownersjust want to adjust well in their society andhence they make a choice that is superfluous in nature.
guns are weapons that make people sexually inadequateor perverse.
guns have power that can be used against perverts whoindulge in crimes such as sexual molestation which stemsfrom their sexual inadequacy.
owning guns is a decision that is an outcome of someabnormal behavior.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentiallyindistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation wereautomobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
What is the authors mainb h d h
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
37/70
g yimplications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decentperson would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must beatavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensingand car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of carsto ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates haveinsisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. Forthese advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it whileinebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do notbelieve that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitledto any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. FortneyStark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserverespect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the NationalInstitute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature astudy derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocentcreatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryforit has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views thatinform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains themost important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of somany gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobbyeffectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is reallywhat all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as iftheir agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
behind writing the passagThe author seeks to warn gun-conagenda, although well-meaning alead to gun-owners buying more gadvocates wrong.
The author wants to advocate hownot always uncalled for as it is in tpolice, and those special individuapolice select to receive permits.
The author wants to criticize the acontrol advocates on the basis tha
their estimate of the motivations o
The author intends to put forth thargument proposed by the gun-coclarifying how this argument has l
merits of their agenda.
The author puts forth his progreshighlighting how a few gun-controinfringements of the rights of gun
I d i
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
38/70
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is n
Paragraph 4
and how such argument is being used against GCA
Introduces an argument against gun owners
Shows how the argument is not justified
Introduces the group GCA - that proposed the argument
Presents the views of GCA
Presents views of another category AGA of GCA
States that such views are baseless.
Reasons out why AG views overpower all GCA views Shows how gun lobby uses AG views against GCA
Pre-
Thought Main Point
Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not
justified and how such argument is being use
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
39/70
CORRECT
Captures essence of passage as 1st part Para 1, 2, 3
2nd
part Para 4
Out of ScopePassage is not written in advisorIt is not addressed to GCA.Does not talk about any such con
Out of ScopeDoes not contain progressive thinPassage does not say that such i
iSWATDoes not capture the complete eUses similar terms used in the paThe purpose of these terms in thfrom what is stated here.
Partial ScopeOnly captures partial essence as 2,3.
The author seeks to warn gun-advocates that their agenda,although well-meaning and credible, will ultimately lead togun-owners buying more guns to prove the advocateswrong.
The author wants to advocate how the usage of gun isnot always uncalled for as it is in the cases of military,police, and those special individuals whom the military orpolice select to receive permits.
The author wants to criticize the argument proposed by gun-control advocates on the basis that they are overly harsh intheir estimate of the motivations of gun-owners.
The author intends to put forth the inherent flaw in anargument proposed by the gun-control advocates whileclarifying how this argument has led to diminishing the
merits of their agenda.
The author put forth his progressive thinking byhighlighting how a few gun-control advocates have led toinfringements of the rights of gun-owners.
p g g g g j g g
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentiallyindistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation wereautomobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale andi li i f l i id i l l h i fi d Ab ll
Each of the following can from the passage EXCEPT
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
40/70
implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decentperson would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must beatavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensingand car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of carsto ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates haveinsisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. Forthese advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it whileinebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do notbelieve that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitledto any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. FortneyStark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserverespect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the NationalInstitute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature astudy derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocentcreatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryforit has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views thatinform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains themost important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of somany gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobbyeffectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is reallywhat all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as iftheir agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
from the passage EXCEPTSome gun-control advocates look lacking mental abilities to take pro
Some gun-control activists are of gun is very similar to driving a car
Some gun-control advocates do nover the possession of guns inter
to freedom.
There are some gun-control proporely on taking away guns from gu
Gun owners show excessive emotover possession of guns.
Global InferenceQuestion to be solved by POE since we have to find the statement that CANNOT be inferred from the p
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
41/70
CORRECT
Per Para 2 For these advocates,just analogous not to owning a car but to dri
inebriated.OWNING a GUN is companot USING a GUN.
Can be InferredPara 3 -demented and blood-thirsty concept of fun is to rain death on innoce
human and otherwise.
Some gun-control advocates look at gun-owners as peoplelacking mental abilities to take proper decisions.
Some gun-control activists are of the opinion that using agun is very similar to driving a car rashly.
Some gun-control advocates do not believe that controlsover the possession of guns interferes with peoples rightto freedom.
There are possible gun-control proposals that do notsolely rely on taking away guns from gun-owners.
Gun owners show excessive emotions toward controlsover possession of guns.
Can be InferredPara 4 Of course, disarmament is notcontrol scheme.
Can be InferredPara 1 It is a truism to say that gun ooppose controls...
Can be InferredPara 2 Because these advocates regainherently wrong, they do not believe th
implicates any issue of freedom of choice
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
42/70
Apply these key reading strategies on all p
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
43/70
Apply these key reading strategies on all p
Review all Paragraph Summaries To
GetImmersed
in thepassage
Summarize& predict
whats next
Identify &quickly go
through theDetails
UndersSente
Struct
Shortenthe
technicalterms &names
Predict thethoughts
throughkeywords
The Improvement Triangle
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
44/70
1. BeliefIn the methods that will
lead to success
2. Behavior
Work to improve your skills
in applying the methods
3. DesireStay focused while
applying
Success
Next Steps
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
45/70
1. Solve this passage again applying the reading strategies
2. Take the e-GMAT free trial (Main Point)
3. Solve 10 Questions from OG (2 passages), applying the readingstrategies
Make sure that you are absolutely clear while selecting
the right answer and rejecting the wrong ones
4. Solve the passage in PDF, applying the reading strategies
5. Review the reading strategies again
6. Do exercise questions
Not only improved performance but also be able to point out
clearly.
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
46/70
Passage 2
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differinternal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity, loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the so
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups which are often perceived as in
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
47/70
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are often perceived as in
the incorporation of evil. Although the term may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the corre
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism syndrome, in huma
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with xenophobia, a complex a
sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everythi
alien represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and ethnocentrism oppositebut a few voices have cautioned that this need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable result of ethnocentr
reminds us, usually involves some claim of common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow e
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other groups can frequently
would be foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insiste
greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessary concomitant
While both can be enhanced by competition and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only
group can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be successful, hostility to outside
ethnic break-down and further hostility and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural da
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances ethnic loyalty withou
outside groups, and even when the threat arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocen
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level of violence
between ethnic groups.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred iscorrelated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
Which of the following cafrom the passage?
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
48/70
co e ated t a state o ost ty o pe a e t quas a to a d out g oups, c a eoften perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the termmay be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation betweenintergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrismsyndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected withxenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislikeand antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alienrepresents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia andethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that thisneed not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitableresult of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim ofcommon ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubtenhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of othergroups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude ofhostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity maybe greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competitionand external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to besuccessful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostilityand competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown thatthreats such as food shortages that may ar ise from environmental catastrophes enhancesethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threatarises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobiaseem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with theoverall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
from the passage?Ethnocentrism and xenophobia arsince these two phenomena are dfeatures.
Bitterness within ones own grouplinked with xenophobia.
Hostility toward out-group has nodynamics.
A feeling of kinship within group mgroup hostility.
In-group favoritism and out-groupincreased by the same factors.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred iscorrelated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
With reference to the context, wfollowing options can be inferredf ll i t t t k f th
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
49/70
y p q g p ,often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the termmay be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation betweenintergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrismsyndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected withxenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislikeand antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alienrepresents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia andethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that thisneed not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitableresult of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim ofcommon ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubtenhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of othergroups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude ofhostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity maybe greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competitionand external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to besuccessful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostilityand competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown thatthreats such as food shortages that may ar ise from environmental catastrophes enhancesethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threatarises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobiaseem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with theoverall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
following extract taken from the
The threshold for adjustment may b
insistence on reciprocity may be gr
It may be easier for the in-group out-group people but such adjustm
pressure by the expectation of ret
It may be more difficult to cooperapeople because there is always a cmatch up to the level of gesture m
It may be more natural to adjust wsuch adjustments are done withou
reciprocity.
It may be easier to adjust within thbe less pressure for returning the
to such adjustments made with ou
It may be relatively easier to adjusis constantly trying to impress othereciprocity of gestures.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred iscorrelated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
According to results of the recentwork done in psychology which ois/are true:
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
50/70
often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the termmay be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation betweenintergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrismsyndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected withxenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislikeand antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alienrepresents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia andethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that thisneed not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitableresult of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim ofcommon ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubtenhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of othergroups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude ofhostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity maybe greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competitionand external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to besuccessful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostilityand competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown thatthreats such as food shortages that may ar ise from environmental catastrophes enhancesethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threatarises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobiaseem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with theoverall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
is/are true:
only i
i. In-group favoritism will occu
group hostility.
ii. There is a necessary pre-con
favoritism.
iii. Out-group hostility can be ac
group favoritism, although th
causes may be different.
i & iii
ii & iii
only ii
i & ii
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differinternal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity, loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the so
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are often perceived as in
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
51/70
y p q g p , p
the incorporation of evil. Although the term may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the corre
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism syndrome, in huma
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with xenophobia, a complex a
sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everythi
alien represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and ethnocentrism oppositebut a few voices have cautioned that this need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable result of ethnocentr
reminds us, usually involves some claim of common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow e
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other groups can frequently
would be foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insiste
greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessary concomitant
While both can be enhanced by competition and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only
group can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be successful, hostility to outside
ethnic break-down and further hostility and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural da
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances ethnic loyalty withou
outside groups, and even when the threat arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocen
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level of violence
between ethnic groups.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of Ethnocentrism = EC
EC
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
52/70
ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-
group/out-group differentiation, in which
internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and
the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred
is correlated with a state of hostility or
permanent quasi-war toward out-groups,
which are often perceived as inferior,
subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil.
Simplify the Sentence Structure to a definition of EC considers it
in whichxyz loyalty to in
correlated with hostility
which are perceiv
=EC has two features
1. Loyalty within group2. Hostility toward out group
Tough Vocabulary Detail- can
g
1. Talk about more general
definition of EC
2. Discuss the reasons
behind such behavior
Although the term may be new, the concept is
not Even Darwin clearly saw the correlationAlthou
ghContrast
EC term is new
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
53/70
not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation
between intergroup competition and intragroup
cooperation, which is the core of the
ethnocentrism syndrome, in human evolution.
EC term is new
BUT concept is not new
Reiterate the definition of EC by s
1. Loyalty within group = intrag2. Hostility toward out group = i
Correlation exists between 1 a
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
54/70
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are
deemed to be intimately connected with
Tough Vocabulary Detail- can be
some variations of EC
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
55/70
deemed to be intimately connected with
xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-
sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike
and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the
alien, and everything that the stranger or alien
represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists
even considered xenophobia and ethnocentrism
opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voiceshave cautioned that this need not be the case.
EC connected with XP
XP = dislike towards strange or
ButContrast
Some people think they are not
Describes new termXP
XP and EC are connected to each ot
Some people think otherwise.
May be next para talks about how th
xenophobia = XP
some variations of ECXP
States same fact in other words. If
XP and vice versa. Both co-exist.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be
maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
Adaptive means practical or adjust
mal has -ve connotation as in ma
So this implies not practical
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
56/70
p p
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he
reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a
propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal
relationships with members of other groups can
frequently be adaptive also, and it would be
foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The
threshold for adjustment may be higher and the
insistence on reciprocity may be greater, but a
smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Per VDB, EC XP
Per VDB, people belonging to theclaim to have common ancestors a
makes it more likely for people of
favor each other.
BUTChange in Dir
Per VDB, we cant take it for granted
other group people.
Per VDB, EC XP
Common ancestry increases in-grou
In-group does not mean out-group h
can exist with out-group people
So this implies not practical
More adjustment may be required with
people may expect more in return of co
group people.
Recent experimental work in psychology also
suggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessary
AlsoSame Directi
Passage will say that EC and XP do n
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
57/70
suggests that in group favoritism is not a necessary
concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can
be enhanced by competition and external threats,
in-group favoritism should be expected only ifaffiliation with the in-group can successfully
counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable
to be successful, hostility to outsiders may be
mirrored by ethnic break-down and further
hostility and competition within the group.
Infer the Meaning fromNote use of also same direction
If the results of the experimental work say
essentially this line conveys that in-group
hostility are not always found together.
WhileContrast com
Fact 1BOTH enhanced by same t
Contrasting Fact 2in-group love
Benefit = fighting com
If in-group love doesn't successfu
threat, then the hatred toward
reflected within the gro
Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown
that threats such as food shortages that may arise
FinallyConcluding com
Passage will say that EC and XP do n
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
58/70
that threats such as food shortages that may arise
from environmental catastrophes enhances ethnic
loyalty without increasing hostility to outside
groups, and even when the threat arises from othergroups (external warfare), the associated
ethnocentrism and xenophobia seem to have
different causes-- with the latter being most
strongly associated with the overall level of
violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Simplify the Sentence Structure to
Analyses have shown that
Environmental threats e.g
enhance ethnic loya no increase in hosti
Analyses have also shown that
External group threats e.g
XP and EC coexist
But because of diffe
XP is due to l
within the gro
groups. XP is not d
Recent experimental work in psychology alsosuggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessary
concomitant of out-group hostility While both can
Experimental work presents v
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
59/70
concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can
be enhanced by competition and external threats,
in-group favoritism should be expected only if
affiliation with the in-group can successfully
counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable
to be successful, hostility to outsiders may be
mirrored by ethnic break-down and further
hostility and competition within the group. Finally,
analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from
environmental catastrophes enhances ethnic
loyalty without increasing hostility to outsidegroups, and even when the threat arises from other
groups (external warfare), the associated
ethnocentrism and xenophobia seem to have
different causes-- with the latter being most
strongly associated with the overall level of
violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Experimental work presents v
In- group favoritism no
out-group hostility
In-group favoritism happens w
threat can be removed
If no benefit, then no in-group
Hostility within group
Competition within grou
Analyses of other data also sho
EC and XP not necessari
May be found together in
but their triggers are dif
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group
differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity, loyalty and devotion to the in-group,
and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war
toward out-groups which are often perceived as inferior subhuman and/or the incorporation of evil
Presents definition
between
Defines EC
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
60/70
toward out groups, which are often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil.
Although the term may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism syndrome, in
human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with xenophobia, a complex
attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike and antagonism vis--vis the strange or
the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists evenconsidered xenophobia and ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned
that this need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable result of
ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of common ancestry (real or
fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But
reciprocal relationships with members of other groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be
foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on
reciprocity may be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessaryconcomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition and external threats, in-
group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the
competitive threat. If a group is unable to be successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic
break-down and further hostility and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data
have shown that threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat arises from other
groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia seem to have different causes--
with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level of violence within as well as between
ethnic groups.
Love for own
Hostility for
Describes new term
XP and EC ar
Some people think o
Per VDB, EC XP
Common ancestry in
love
In-group does not m
hostility. Cooperati
group people if it is
Experimental work
In- group fav
found with o
In-group favoritism
competitive threat c
If no benefit, then no
Also, they may be fo
certain situations bu
different.
Defines XP. States that EC and XP are connected
Shows that XP cannot be caused by EC (goes against P2)
Provides evidence saying EC and XP are not connected
(goes against P2 and along P3)
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred iscorrelated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which areoften perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
Which of the following cafrom the passage?
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
61/70
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation betweenintergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrismsyndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected withxenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislikeand antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alienrepresents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that thisneed not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitableresult of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim ofcommon ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubtenhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of othergroups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude ofhostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity maybe greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competitionand external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to besuccessful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostilityand competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown thatthreats such as food shortages that may ar ise from environmental catastrophes enhancesethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threatarises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobiaseem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with theoverall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Ethnocentrism and xenophobia arsince these two phenomena are dfeatures.
Bitterness within ones own grouplinked with xenophobia.
Hostility toward out-group has nodynamics.
A feeling of kinship within group mgroup hostility.
In-group favoritism and out-groupincreased by the same factors.
iSWAT
Global InferenceAuthor explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not
justified and how such argument is being use
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
62/70
CORRECT
Author mentions this point in las ...with the latter being most strongly asso
of violence within as well as between ethn
iSWATPer the passage, it is not necessary thalways be present together but we caare never found together.In fact, last line of passage presents aEC and XP could be present; their cauthough.
OppositePassage clearly states While both can b
competition and external threats
OppositeIf a group is unable to be successful, hostil
mirrored by ethnic break-down and further
within the group.From the above extract,
under certain circumstances, the out-grou
duplicated within the group.
Ethnocentrism and xenophobia are never found togethersince these two phenomena are different in their corefeatures.
Bitterness within ones own group can sometimes belinked with xenophobia.
Hostility toward out-group has no bearing on the in-groupdynamics.
A feeling of kinship within group members promotes out-group hostility.
In-group favoritism and out-group hostility are notincreased by the same factors.
iSWATThe phrase-feeling of kinship - is mentione
but it has been used to talk about in-group
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred iscorrelated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which areoften perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
b th t i t E D i l l th l ti b t
With reference to the context, wfollowing options can be inferredfollowing extract taken from the
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
63/70
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation betweenintergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrismsyndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected withxenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislikeand antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alienrepresents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that thisneed not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitableresult of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim ofcommon ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubtenhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of othergroups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude ofhostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity maybe greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competitionand external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to besuccessful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostilityand competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown thatthreats such as food shortages that may ar ise from environmental catastrophes enhancesethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threatarises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobiaseem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with theoverall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
The threshold for adjustment may b
insistence on reciprocity may be gr
It may be easier for the in-group out-group people but such adjustm
pressure by the expectation of ret
It may be more difficult to cooperapeople because there is always a cmatch up to the level of gesture m
It may be more natural to adjust wsuch adjustments are done withoureciprocity.
It may be easier to adjust within thbe less pressure for returning the to such adjustments made with ou
It may be relatively easier to adjusis constantly trying to impress othereciprocity of gestures.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be
maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
Adaptive means practical or adjust mal has -ve connotation as in ma
So this impliesnot practical
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
64/70
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he
reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a
propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal
relationships with members of other groups can
frequently be adaptive also, and it would be
foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The
threshold for adjustment may be higher and the
insistence on reciprocity may be greater, but a
smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Per VDB, EC XP
Per VDB, people belonging to theclaim to have common ancestors a
makes it more likely for people of
favor each other.
BUTChange in Dir
Per VDB, we cant take it for granted
other group people.
Per VDB, EC XP
Common ancestry increases in-grou
In-group does not mean out-group h
can exist with out-group people
More adjustment may be required with
people may expect more in return of co
group people.
Comparison stated between the level
of adjustment and expectation of
reciprocity between in-group and
out-group people
Out of Context
Detail QuestionSpecific DetailPeople may have higher level of adjustment with out-group people than with in-group people. Also, t
reciprocity from out-group than from in-group people.
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
65/70
CORRECT
Reword of the stated part of the
Distorts the comparison stated inthreshold for adjustment means tlevel (of) efforts to adjust (with t
iSWATFirstly, out-group adjustment mawith in-group people.Secondly, there is no stated causlevel of adjustment and reciproci
iSWAT
1st
portion of this choice is correcthe passage both- higher adjustminsistence on reciprocity are menstated causal relationship betwee
iSWATThere is no stated causal relationlevel/ease of adjustment and rec
It may be easier for the in-group people to adjust with theout-group people but such adjustment is always underpressure by the expectation of return-benefits.
It may be more difficult to cooperate with the out-grouppeople because there is always a constant pressure tomatch up to the level of gesture made by them.
It may be more natural to adjust within the group sincesuch adjustments are done without any pressure ofreciprocity.
It may be easier to adjust within the group and there maybe less pressure for returning the gesture when comparedto such adjustments made with out-group people.
It may be relatively easier to adjust among groups as oneis constantly trying to impress other groups withreciprocity of gestures.
-
8/10/2019 Improve GMAT Rc
66/70
Incorrect