key+strategies+to+ace+rc

8/13/2019 Key+Strategies+to+Ace+RC

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/keystrategiestoacerc 1/63

How to Ace

Reading Comprehensi

An e-GMAT Live SessionCelebrating the launch of e-GMAT.com



3 PARTS TO THIS WEBINAR

The Company

The People

12 minutes 100 minutes



e-GMAT – the company

- Sept’2011 to help non-natives

- 4500+ customers and counting

- More non native reviews.

-

Learning person

- Engage all three

vision, auditory)

- Hire the best and brightest

- Full time dedication



More non-native success sto

150



Most # of debriefs

Company Name # of debriefs

e-GMAT 58

Economist GMAT Tutor 7

GMAT Pill 10

Kaplan 14Knewton 9

Manhattan GMAT 15



About e-GMAT Faculty

1. Learning 2. Teaching excellence 3. Customer Success

99+ percentile on

many exams including

GMAT

• Top Ranker in CBSE

• Topper in BITS Pilani

• Best Expert on GC

• Past – HT editor • 99.98 percentile on CAT

• 770 on GMAT

• 99.90 percentile on CAT

• 98 percentile on GMAT

• 5 years to GMAT teaching experience

• PhD

• Gue

• 10+



2 Kinds of courses

Verbal Online Verbal Live Prep

World’s most comprehensiveOnline course

World’s most comprehensiveLive course

VLP = VO

+ 3 Work

Improve



November Batch CalendarS.No Session Name Day Date Session

1 STR1 - How to Develop your Study Plan Saturday Nov 9 7:00

2 SC1 – How to Approach SC Saturday Nov 16 7:00

3 SC2 – Foundation of Sentence Structure Sunday Nov 17 7:004 SC3 – Parallelism Saturday Nov 23 7:00

5 SC4 – Modifiers Sunday Nov 24 7:00

6 SC Workshop (On Demand) Tuesday Nov 26 Anytime (o

7 CR1 – Inference Saturday Nov 30 7:00

8 SC Workshop (Analysis) Saturday Nov 30 9:00

9 CR2 – Pre-thinking and Argument Structure Sunday Dec 1 7:00

10 CR3 – Evaluate Saturday Dec 7 7:00

11 CR4 – Strengthen Sunday Dec 8 7:00

12RC1 - Efficient Reading and Comprehension Wednesday Dec 11 Anytime (o

13 RC2 – Master the Most Challenging Passages Saturday Dec 14 9:30

14 CR5 – Weaken Sunday Dec 15 7:00

15 CR6 – Bold Face Sunday Dec 15 9:00

16 CR Workshop (On Demand) Friday Dec 20 Anytime (o

17 RC Workshop (On Demand) Friday Dec 20 Anytime (o

18 CR & RC Workshop (Analysis) Saturday Dec 21 7:00

19 Verbal Workshop Sunday Dec 22 7:00



December Batch CalendarS.No Session Name Day Date Session

1 CR1 – Inference Saturday Nov 30 7:00

2 CR2 – Pre-thinking and Argument Structure Sunday Dec 1 7:00

3 CR3 – Evaluate Saturday Dec 7 7:004 CR4 – Strengthen Sunday Dec 8 7:00

5 RC1 - Efficient Reading and Comprehension Wednesday Dec 11 Anytime (o

6 RC2 – Master the Most Challenging Passages Saturday Dec 14 9:30

7 CR5 – Weaken Sunday Dec 15 7:00

8 CR6 – Bold Face Sunday Dec 15 9:00

9 CR Workshop (On Demand) Friday Dec 20 Anytime (o

10 RC Workshop (On Demand) Friday Dec 20 Anytime (o

11 SC1 – How to Approach SC Saturday Jan 4 7:00

12 SC2 – Foundation of Sentence Structure Sunday Jan 5 7:00

13 SC3 – Parallelism Saturday Jan 11 7:00

14 SC4 – Modifiers Sunday Jan 12 7:00

15 SC Workshop (On Demand) Tuesday Jan 15 Anytime (o

16 Verbal Workshop Sunday Jan 19 7:00



Verbal Live Prep provides more of eve

YES-

-




The Company

The People




Tell us about your RC approach



Passage 1

It i t i t th t h t i ll t l th t ti ll i di ti i h bl f th th



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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 bigotry—for 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



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 horror —that 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 proposal —nomatter 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 a

study derived the following description of the way “anti-gun” advocates see gun owners—as"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 bigotry —forit 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

Th h ’ i






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 a

study derived the following description of the way “anti-gun” advocates see gun owners—as"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 bigotry —forit has no empirical basis in fact.


The author’s main purposwriting the passage is to:

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 lmerits of their agenda.

The author put forth his progresshighlighting 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 Which of the following can






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 owners—as"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 bigotry —forit has no empirical basis in fact.


Which of the following canfrom 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.

Wh t th t h f R



What is the optimum approach for R

Read and

COMPREHENDthe passage well

enough to create

passage summary

Pre-Think theanswer

Elimin

c

This process improves accuracy and saves time since it minimizes the need to re-

Wh d l f lt i RC?



Why do people falter in RC?

CommitDo not know how to

approach the question

Cannot comprehend the

passage

Not an active reader

Passage is of

unfamiliar topic

Difficult vocabulary

in the passage



Apply these key reading strategies on all p

Review all Paragraph Summaries To

Get

Immersed

in the

passage

Summarize

& predict

what’s next

Identify &

quickly go

through theDetails

Unders

Sente

Struct

Shorten

the

technicalterms &

names

Predict the

thoughts

throughkeywords

It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those they w



y g y y pp y g y

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 horror—that 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


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 proposal—no 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 bigotry—for 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.

I i i h

G h t i ll



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 ofregulation 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 Guns – owning

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

Yet – Change 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



Above all, automobile regulation is not

premised on the idea that cars are evils from

which any decent person would recoil in

horror—that 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


Above all – Same 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 passage – car 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



y g y y

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 firearmsand to cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not

premised on the idea that cars are evils from which

any decent person would recoil in horror—that

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 andB Ch i Di



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 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.

But – Change in Dire

• “terms” refer to the argument in

• He introduces a group called

• gun control advocates = G

Detail Informatio• Purpose – Irrespective of the wa

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 condition – that certainly not a responsible cond

Because – Some cause and eff

• GCA consider gun ownership W

Banning guns does not hamper

Nor, for the same reason, do they think that theN S Di ti



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.

Nor – Same 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 instance – Exam• 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 gunI f t dd l



act, a de t ve a a ys s o e ca gu

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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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

Author’s view of AGAAGA view is baseless – no 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 Author’s



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.

Of course – Author’s

Not all controls call for disarmame

But – Change 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.

For – Presents 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

h ld d l f h b f l b l d h l k



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 horror—that 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 ofthe way “anti-gun” advocates see gun owners—as "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

bigotry—for 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 group – GCA - that proposed the argument

Presents the views of GCA

Presents views of another category – AGA 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 were According to some advoca



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 horror —that 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 proposal —no

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 owners—as

"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 bigotry —forit has no empirical basis in fact.


gcontrol, 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 Question

Gl b l d t il i th i f GCA h b t d t lti l l U POE t fi d th



CORRECT Reword of following statement in... gun ownership cannot involve real ch

it is actually only a preconditioned man

inadequacy or perversion

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 owners just 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

The author’s main purpos









p pwriting the passage is to:

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 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 put forth his progresshighlighting how a few gun-controinfringements of the rights of gun



Paragraph 1

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 3

Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is

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



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 in

their 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 to infringements of the rights of gun-owners.

Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not justified and how such argument is being use

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

Which of the following canf th EXCEPT









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 Inference

Question to be solved by POE since we have to find the statement that CANNOT be inferred from the



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.”

Question to be solved by POE since we have to find the statement that CANNOT be inferred from the

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 people’s 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 not

control scheme.”

Can be InferredPara 1 – “It is a truism to say that gun o

oppose controls...”

Can be InferredPara 2 – “Because these advocates rega

inherently wrong, they do not believe th

implicates any issue of freedom of choice

What is the optimum approach for R



p pp

Read and

COMPREHENDthe passage well

enough to create

passage summary

Pre-Think theanswer

Eliminc

This process improves accuracy and saves time since it minimizes the need to re-





Review all Paragraph Summaries To

Get

Immersed

in thepassage

Summarize

& predict

what’s next

Identify &

quickly go

through theDetails

Unders

Sente

Struct

Shorten

the

technicalterms &

names

Predict the

thoughts

throughkeywords



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

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-à-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 is

Which of the following cafrom the passage?



correlated 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 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-à-vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien

represents. 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 one’s 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.


l d i h f h ili i d hi h

With reference to the context, wfollowing options can be inferred









g pfollowing 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.


l t d ith t t f h tilit t i t d t hi h

According to results of the recentwork done in psychology which o

/









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 acgroup 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

l t d ith t t f h tilit t i t d t hi h ft i d i



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-à-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



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 which xyz loyalty to in

correlated with hostility

• which are perceiv

=EC has two features

1. Loyalty within group2. Hostility toward out group

EC

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

E D i l l h l iAlthough – Contrast



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

Bordering on the extreme, one definition ofethnocentrism 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 permanentquasi-war 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 humanevolution.

Presents definition of EC - Co

1. Love for own group

2. Hostility for outside grou

Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are

d d t b i ti t l t d ith

Tough Vocabulary Detail- can be



deemed to be intimately connected with

xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-

sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike

and antagonism vis-à-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 voices

have cautioned that this need not be the case.

• EC connected with XP

• XP = dislike towards strange or

But – Contrast

• Some people think they are not

• Describes new term – XP

• 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




result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he

reminds us, usually involves some claim of

common ancestry (real or fictive), and apropensity 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.

BUT – Change in Dir

Per VDB, we can’t 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

t th t i f iti i t

Also – Same Directi

Passage will say that EC and XP do n



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 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.


Infer the Meaning from Note use of “also” – same direction

If the results of the experimental work say

essentially this line conveys that in-grouphostility are not always found together.

While – Contrast com

Fact 1 – BOTH enhanced by same t

Contrasting Fact 2 – in-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

th t th t h f d h t th t i

Finally – Concluding com




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.

g y

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

f h l Wh l b h



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


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• Presents definition

between

Defines EC



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-à-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 necessary

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 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.

between

• Love for own

• Hostility for

• Describes new term

• XP and EC ar

• Some people think o

Defines EC

• 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?



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-à-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.




Ethnocentrism and xenophobia arsince these two phenomena are dfeatures.

Bitterness within one’s 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.

Global InferenceAuthor explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not justified and how such argument is being use



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…”

Opposite“If a group is unable to be successful, hostil


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 one’s 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

With reference to the context, wfollowing options can be inferredfollowing extract taken from the



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.






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 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


• Adaptive means practical or adjust

• “mal” has -ve connotation as in ma

• So this implies – not practical



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.

BUT – Change in Dir

Per VDB, we can’t 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.

Comparison stated between the level

of adjustment and expectation of

reciprocity between in-group and

out-group people

Out of Context

Detail Question

Specific Detail – People may have higher level of adjustment with out-group people than with in-group people. Also,

reciprocity from out-group than from in-group people.



CORRECT

Reword of the stated part of the

Out of ContextDistorts 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.

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

According to results of the recentwork done in psychology which ois/are true:



p , , / p gmay 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.






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 thcauses may be different.

i & iii

ii & iii

only ii

i & ii

Incorrect

Specific InferenceThe question pertains to results of “recent experimental work done in psychology”.

i I f iti ill l ith t t



CORRECT

Statement II : Ref. (last paragraph):

…in-group favoritism should be expected

the in-group can successfully counter the

The necessary pre-condition is the h

above.

IncorrectThe passage provides information only for favoritism and out-group hostility may not it does not give us any information to concfavoritism will only occur in the absence of

only i

i. In-group favoritism will occur only without out-

group hostility.

ii. There is a necessary pre-condition to in-group

favoritism.

iii. Out-group hostility can be accompanied by in-group

favoritism, although their respective causes may bedifferent.

i & iii

ii & iii

only ii

i & ii

Incorrect

I: Not in the passageIII: Irrelevant section of the passage.

Contents of statement no. III cannot be deriv

work done in psychology but from the cross-

And the question pertains only to the experim

IncorrectStatement II is correct but statement III is no

IncorrectStatement II is correct but statement I is not

How to prepare for RC?



• Learn the reading strategies

• Practice and master the reading

strategies

e-GMAT RC Course contains special“core skills” files that help you

master reading strategies

• Learn question specifi

• Various types of infere

and structure questio

e-GMAT RC Course contaspecific concept files to he

master each question cate

• Practice on passages of varied

subject mattere-GMAT RC Course contains over 50

passages spanning multiple subject

matter areas to help you become

comfortable.

• Practice with the expe

sessions• Get a reality check of

level through worksh

Special RC sessions and w

included in Verbal Live P




R i ll P h S i T

Get

Immersed

in thepassage

Summarize

& predict

what’s next

Identify &

quickly go

through the

Details

Unders

Sente

Struct

Shorten

the

technical

terms &

names

Predict the

thoughts

through

keywords




The Company

The People


key+strategies+to+ace+rc

Documents