key strategies to ace rc - may_23.pdf

How to Ace

Reading Comprehension

An e-GMAT Live Session

3 PARTS TO THIS WEBINAR

The Company

The People

12 minutes 100 minutes20 minutes

RC

Strategies

e-GMAT the company

- Sept2011 to help non-natives

- 9500+ customers and counting

- More non native reviews than

any other test prep company.

- Hire the best and brightest

- Full time dedication

- Course Architecture - 5X more

efficient than books

- Better Retention, More efficient

application

More non-native success stories600+

125

Real Reviews

Check them out!!

Real People = True Reviews

About e-GMAT Faculty

99+ percentile on

many exams

including

GMAT

Top Ranker in CBSE Top ranker in BITS Pilani

Best Expert on GC Past HT editor

98 percentile on GMAT 5 years of GMAT

teaching experience

1. Learning 2. Teaching Excellence 3. Customer Success

760, ISB Authored Vocabulary

Advantage, Pearson

99.90 percentile on CAT

760 on GMAT

About e-GMAT Faculty1. Voted Best Presenter in GMATClubs 1 Million post events.

Twice as many excellent ratings as the closest contestant.

4 Out of the Top 5 Instructors

TWO KINDS OF COURSES

Online

5X more efficient than books.

Cover everything from core foundation to most advanced application.

Provide better value than books.

Verbal Online Quant Online

Indv. CoursesGMAt Online

Live Prep

Online + Live Instructor Interaction

Guaranteed Score Improvement

Better value than + a lot of flexibility

Verbal Live Quant Live

GMAT Live

1. Verbal Online

=> VLP = VO + Live Sessions and their Recordings+ Score Improvement Guarantee

Designed for Students looking for improvement in less than 30 days.

Contains Verbal IR Mocks GMAT Club tests Lots of Practice

2. Verbal Live Prep

=> VLP = VO + Live Sessions + 3 Workshops + Score Improvement Guarantee

Worlds most successful course for non-natives

23 refunds/~3,200 Students

Worlds most Reviewed Online Course

285 Reviews

Highest Number of Success Stories on Share GMAT Experience

How does it Compare?

$299

June Batch Calendar

S.No Session Name Day Date Session Time

1 CR1 - Inference Saturday May 30 7:00 a.m.

2 CR2 Pre-thinking and Argument Structure Sunday May 31 7:00 a.m.

3 CR3 Evaluate Saturday June 6 7:00 a.m.

4 CR4 Strengthen Sunday June 7 7:00 a.m.

5 CR5 Weaken Sunday June 7 9:00 a.m.

6 CR6 Bold Face Saturday June 13 7:00 a.m.

7 SC1 How to Approach SC Sunday June 14 7:00 a.m.

8 SC2 Foundation of Sentence Structure Saturday June 20 7:00 a.m.

9 SC3 Parallelism Sunday June 21 7:00 a.m.

10 SC4 Modifiers Saturday June 27 7:00 a.m.

11 RC1 - Efficient Reading and Comprehension Sunday June 28 7:00 a.m.

12 RC2 Session Saturday July 4 7:00 a.m.

13 Verbal Workshop Sunday July 5 7:00 a.m.

1. More comprehensive than any other course2. All Live Sessions take place on weekends3. 7:00 am Pacific = 7:30 PM IST

Things to note

Key Characteristics of every course

7 day return policyGet your money back if you dont like the course

Painless upgradesStart with the cheapest course and upgrade by paying the difference

Unlimited access 1. Attend as many batches as you like2. Get access to recordings as soon as

you complete your purchase

First Time Takers1. Improve more than re-takers2. Improve faster

Buy Once Attend Multiple batches

Join now and attend Multiple batchesNew batch starts every 20 days (May 30, June 14)

3 PARTS TO THIS WEBINAR

The Company

The People

12 minutes 100 minutes20 minutes

RC

Strategies

Tell us about your RC approach

Commonly listed reasons for not doing well on RC

1. Not enough time; reading speed is slow

2. Passages are too complex

3. Limited familiarity with the topic/subject

4. Not enough retention

5. The answer choices are very close

Major difference between a person who aces RC and

who struggles with it

Apply these key reading strategies while reading the

paragraphs

Understand

Sentence

Structure

Shorten the

technical

terms &

names

Predict the

thoughts

through

keywords

Warm-up exercise

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 is correlated with a state of hostility or toward out-

groups, which are often perceived as subhuman and/or the incorporation of evil.

Question: What is the main purpose of the author behind writing the above paragraph?

To criticise a concept that encourages hostility towards people not belonging to the same group

To define the concept of ethnocentrism , which leads to hierarchy among social groups

To evaluate the concept of ethnocentrism while enlisting its various features

To introduce the concept of ethnocentrism by presenting a view on it

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, is

correlated with a state of hostility or

toward out-groups, which are often

perceived as subhuman and/or the

incorporation of evil.

Ethnocentrism = EC

Simplify the Sentence Structure to understand Meaning

a definition of EC considers it abc in which xyz loyalty to in-group and def is

correlated with hostility toward out-groups

which are perceived as inferior or evil

=EC has two features

1. Loyalty within group

2. Hostility toward out group

EC

Tough Vocabulary Detail- can be skipped

In-group vs. out-group behavior

1. Talk about more general

definition of EC

2. Discuss the reasons

behind such behavior





loyalty, and devotion to the in-group is correlated

with a state of hostility or toward out-groups,

which are often perceived as subhuman and/or

the incorporation of evil. Presents a definition of EC - Correlation between1. Love for own group

2. Hostility for outside group.

To criticise a concept that encourages hostility

towards people not belonging to the same

group

To define the concept of ethnocentrism, which

leads to hierarchy among social groups

To evaluate the concept of ethnocentrism

while enlisting its various features

To introduce the concept of ethnocentrism

by presenting a view on it

Author comments on the given definition of ethnocentrism; doesnt criticize the concept. Only stated relation between EC and hostility is that, as per the definition, theyare correlated. Doesnt mean EC encourages hostility in reality.

(1) There is no mention of resulting hierarchy anywhere(2) The author doesnt himself/herself define anything; instead he/she presents a view on it

CorrectThe author does introduce the concept of EC by sharing adefinition of it; since the author regards the definition a bit on the extreme side, we can easily understand that its a view on EC and not the definition of the concept itself.

(1)Author does not comment on the concept of EC (2) Also, the listed features are a bit exaggerated as per the author

Question: Mark all the pieces of information that can be inferred from the above paragraph:

Xenophobia and ethnocentrism are different facets of the same concept

The canonical variants of ethnocentrism are closely connected with xenophobia

Xenophobia and ethnocentrism are not connected with each other

In some cases xenophobia could be the cause of ethnocentrism

Xenophobia entails dislike towards the strange

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 even considered

xenophobia and ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have

cautioned that this need not be the case.

What can be inferred = What would the author agree with?

Understanding the question stem

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

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 alien

But Contrast

Some people think they are not correlated.

Describes new term XP XP and EC are considered connected to each other. Some people think otherwise.

xenophobia = XP


some variations of ECXP

States same thing in other words. If EC exists, so

does XP and vice versa. Both co-exist.

Xenophobia and ethnocentrism are different

facets of the same concept

The canonical variants of ethnocentrism are

closely connected with xenophobia

Xenophobia and ethnocentrism are not

connected with each other

In some cases xenophobia could be the

cause of ethnocentrism

Xenophobia entails dislike towards the

strange

This is the deemed view. The reality could be different.

Author says that a few views have warned that EC and XP may not be two sides of the same coin; it doesnt mean they are not/cannot be related

This is the view of some sociocultural anthropologists; the author doesnt agree or disagree with it.

CorrectExplicitly mentioned: xenophobia, a complex strange/alien

No cause and effect relationship is hinted at anywhere in the paragraph.

Question: Mark all the pieces of information that can be inferred from the above paragraph: (Could have multiple correct answers)

NOW tell us how you would approach RC

Apply your learnings

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.

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 even considered 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.

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. 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 even considered 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.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

Ethnocentrism and xenophobia are never found together since these two phenomena are different in their core features.

Hostility toward out-group has no bearing on the in-group dynamics.

A feeling of kinship within group members promotes out-group hostility.

In-group favoritism and out-group hostility are not increased by the same factors.

Violence inside the group can be linked with xenophobia





With reference to the context, which of the following options can be inferred from the following extract taken from the passage:

The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may be greater

It may be easier for the in-group people to adjust with the out-group people but such adjustment is always under pressure by the expectation of return-benefits.

It may be more difficult to cooperate with the out-group people because there is always a constant pressure to match up to the level of gesture made by them.

It may be more natural to adjust within the group since such adjustments are done without any pressure of reciprocity.

It may be easier to adjust within the group and there may be less pressure for returning the gesture when compared to such adjustments made with out-group people.

It may be relatively easier to adjust among groups as one is constantly trying to impress other groups with reciprocity of gestures.





According to results of the recent experimental work done in psychology which of the following is/are true:

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 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 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.

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 even considered 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.





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.

Ethnocentrism = EC


a definition of EC considers it abc in which xyz loyalty to in-group and def is

correlated with hostility toward out-groups

which are perceived as inferior or evil

=EC has two features

1. Loyalty within group

2. Hostility toward out group

EC


In-group vs. out-group behavior

1. Talk about more general

definition of EC

2. Discuss the reasons

behind such behavior

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 of EC - Correlation between

1. Love for own group

2. Hostility for outside group.

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

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 alien

But Contrast

Some people think they are not correlated.

Describes new term XP XP and EC are considered connected to each other. Some people think otherwise.

xenophobia = XP


some variations of ECXP

States same fact in other words. If EC exists, so does

XP and vice versa. Both co-exist.

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.

Per VDB, EC XP

Per VDB, people belonging to the same ethnic group claim to have common ancestors and definitely this

makes it more likely for people of the same group to

favor each other.

BUT Change in Direction

Per VDB, we cant take it for granted that people will hate

other group people.

Per VDB, EC XP Common ancestry increases in-group love In-group does not mean out-group hostility. Cooperation

can exist with out-group people

Adaptive means practical or can be adjusted mal has -ve connotation as in malpractice, etc. So this implies not practical

More adjustment may be required with out-group people and

people may expect more in return of cooperation with out-

group people.

Recent experimental work in psychology also

suggest 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.

Also Same Direction

Passage will say that EC and XP do not always co-exist

Infer the Meaning from ContextNote use of also same direction

If the results of the experimental work say the same thing then

essentially this line conveys that in-group favoritism and out-group

hostility are not always found together.

While Contrast coming ahead!

Fact 1 BOTH enhanced by same things

Contrasting Fact 2 in-group love happens for benefit

Benefit = fighting competitive threat

If in-group love doesn't successfully fight competitive threat, then the hatred towards outsiders will be

reflected within the group as well.

_PARA 4

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.

Finally Concluding comments

Passage will say that EC and XP do not always co-exist


Analyses have shown that Environmental threats e.g. food shortage

enhance ethnic loyalty no increase in hostility to out-groups

Analyses have also shown that External group threats e.g. warfare

XP and EC coexist But because of different reasons

XP is due to level of violence within the groups and between the

groups.

XP is not due to in-group love

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.

Although the term may be new, the concept is not.

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 even

considered 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.

Presents definition of EC - Correlation between

Love for own group Hostility for outside group.

Describes new term XP XP and EC are connected

Some people think otherwise.

Presents a definition of EC

Per VDB, EC XP Common ancestry increases in-group

love In-group does not mean out-group

hostility. Cooperation can exist with out-group people if it is beneficial.

Experimental work confirms para 3 views In- group favoritism not always

found with out-group hostility In-group favoritism happens when

competitive threat can be removed If no benefit, then no in-group favoritism. Also, they may be found together in

certain situations but their triggers are different.

Defines XP. States that EC and XP considered connected

by some

Shows that XP cannot be caused by EC (goes against P2)

Provides evidence saying EC and XP are not necessarily

connected (goes against P2 and along P3)





Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?



In-group hostility is less intense than the hostility toward out-group.



CORRECT Author mentions this point in last line of the passage ...with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level

of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.

MisinterpretationPer the passage, it is not necessary that XP and EC may always be present together but we cannot conclude that they are never found together. In fact, last line of passage presents a situation in which both EC and XP could be present; their causes may be different though.

OppositePassage clearly states While both can be enhanced by competition and external threats

OppositeIf 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. From the above extract, it is amply clear that under certain circumstances, the out-group hostility may be duplicated within the group and the resultant hostility may be even more.

Global Inference


In-group hostility is less intense than the hostility toward out-group.



OppositeThe phrase- feeling of kinship - is mentioned in the third paragraph, but it has been used to talk about in-group loyalty/favoritism.






With reference to the context, which of the following options can be inferred from the following extract taken from the passage:

The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may be greater



It may be more natural to adjust within the group since such adjustments are done without any pressure of reciprocity.



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.

Per VDB, EC XP

Per VDB, people belonging to the same ethnic group claim to have common ancestors and definitely this

makes it more likely for people of the same group to

favor each other.

BUT Change in Direction

Per VDB, we cant take it for granted that people will hate

other group people.

Per VDB, EC XP Common ancestry increases in-group love In-group does not mean out-group hostility. Cooperation

can exist with out-group people

Adaptive means practical or adjustment mal has -ve connotation as in malpractice, etc. So this implies not practical

More adjustment may be required with out-group people and

people may expect more in return of cooperation with out-

group people.

Comparison stated between the level of adjustment and expectation of reciprocity between in-group and out-group people

EC & EP_Q1_POE

CORRECT Reword of the stated part of the passage.

MisinterpretationDistorts the comparison stated in the passage. Higher threshold for adjustment means that it takes more/higher level (of) efforts to adjust (with the out-group).

OppositeFirstly, out-group adjustment may be more difficult than with in-group people.Secondly, there is no stated causal relationship between level of adjustment and reciprocity of gestures.

Misinterpretation1st portion of this choice is correct; 2nd is not. Yes, in the passage both- higher adjustment level and greater insistence on reciprocity are mentioned but there is no stated causal relationship between these two elements.

No given informationThere is no stated causal relationship between level/ease of adjustment and reciprocity of gestures.

Detail Question

Specific Detail People may have higher level of adjustment with out-group people than with in-group people. Also, they may expect more reciprocity from out-group than from in-group people.



It may be more natural to adjust within the group sincesuch adjustments are done without any pressure of reciprocity.







According to results of the recent experimental work done in psychology which of the following is/are true:

only i




i & iii

ii & iii

only ii

i & ii

CORRECTStatement II : Ref. (last paragraph):in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the competitive threat. The necessary pre-condition is the highlighted portion above.

IncorrectThe passage provides information only for the fact that in-group favoritism and out-group hostility may not always be correlated. But it does not give us any information to conclude that in-group favoritism will only occur in the absence of out-group hostility.

Specific Inference

The question pertains to results of recent experimental work done in psychology.

only i




i & iii

ii & iii

only ii

i & ii

IncorrectI: Not in the passageIII: Irrelevant section of the passage.Contents of statement no. III cannot be derived from the experimental work done in psychology but from the cross-cultural data analyses. And the question pertains only to the experimental work.

IncorrectStatement II is correct but statement III is not.

IncorrectStatement II is correct but statement I is not.

NOW tell us how you would approach RC

GENERAL CONSENSUS ABOUT RC

While SC and CR can be taught, RC cannot be taught

The only way to improve RC by reading 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 general part of manufacturing.

Variations reduce (errors reduce) as workers become more skillful.

Workers become more skillful with experience.

Process variations 10K in 1M

THEN

Process variations are due to wrong approach to process design.

Process variations reduced to 2 in 1M

ARE MANUFACTURING AND RC THE SAME

1. Closed environment2. Few new concepts3. With correct approach

=> Minimal errors

What is the optimum approach for RC?

Read and

COMPREHEND the

passage well enough

to create passage

summary

Pre-Think the

answerEliminate answer

choices

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

Apply these key reading strategies on all passages.

Review all Paragraph Summaries Together

Get

Immersed

in the

passage

Summarize

& predict

whats next

Identify &

quickly go

through the

Details

Understan

d

Sentence

Structure

Infer

Meaning of

Difficult

Words

Shorten

the

technical

terms &

names

Predict the

thoughts

through

keywords

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

Next Steps

1. Solve the bonus passage applying the reading strategies2. Take the e-GMAT free trial (Main Point)3. Solve 10 Questions from OG (2 passages), applying the reading

strategies Make sure that you are absolutely clear while selecting

the right answer and rejecting the wrong ones4. Solve the passage in PDF, applying the reading strategies5. Review the reading strategies again6. Do exercise questions

Not only improved performance but also be able to point out mistakes clearly.

Bonus passage

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 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 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. 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.

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 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 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. 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.

According to some advocates of gun-control, people own guns because:

owning guns ultimately leads to getting rid of sexual adequacy.

gun owners just want to adjust well in their society and hence they make a choice that is superfluous in nature.

guns are weapons that make people sexually inadequate or perverse.

guns have power that can be used against perverts who indulge in crimes such as sexual molestation which stems from their sexual inadequacy.

owning guns is a decision that is an outcome of some abnormal behavior.





What is the authors main purpose behind writing the passage?

The author seeks to warn gun-control advocates that their agenda, although well-meaning and credible, will ultimately lead to gun-owners buying more guns to prove the advocates wrong.

The author wants to advocate how the usage of gun is not always uncalled for as it is in the cases of military, police, and those special individuals whom the military or police 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 an argument proposed by the gun-control advocates while clarifying how this argument has led to diminishing the merits of their agenda.

The author puts forth his progressive thinking by highlighting how a few gun-control advocates have led to infringements of the rights of gun-owners.





Each of the following can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT:

Some gun-control advocates look at gun-owners as people lacking mental abilities to take proper decisions.

Some gun-control activists are of the opinion that using a gun is very similar to driving a car rashly.

Some gun-control advocates do not believe that controls over the possession of guns interferes with peoples right to freedom.

There are some gun-control proposals that do not solely rely on taking away guns from gun-owners.

Gun owners show excessive emotions toward controls over possession of guns.

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 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


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 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. 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.

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 to

firearms and to cars.

Passage about Guns owning & control

Author may present view points that are

Pro- gun Anti-gun Or both

Gun owners hysterically oppose controls controls that are similar to those controls

that they would support if cars were being regulated

instead of guns

Yet Change in Direction

Guns and cars are different So the basis for controls on them is also different So gun owners are justified in their difference of

approach to such controls

- gun owners

- gun owners

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


Above all Same Direction

Explains how the reason behind car regulation is different from the reason behind gun regulation.

Nor are

Same Direction (previous sentence not premised)

Explains that purpose of car controls is different from the purpose of gun controls.

- gun owners

Infer the meaning from the CONTEXT

Premise of car regulation is different from premise of gun regulation

Per passage car regulation is not premised on the stated idea that actually pertains to guns

They are evil. Any one owning such an awful thing is a disturbed person.

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 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 opposing views about similar controls for guns vs. cars.

But their difference in views is justified or this double standard is justified:

The basis for controls is different. The purpose of controls is different.

- gun owners

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 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.

But Change in Direction

terms refer to the argument in para 1. He/She introduces a group called

gun control advocates = GCA

Detail Information

Purpose Irrespective of the way in which GCA phrase their argument, the crux of it remains the

same.

Infer the meaning from the CONTEXT

GCA think that guns are bad. So when they compare owning a gun with driving

a car in certain condition that condition is

certainly not a responsible condition.

Because Some cause and effect presented

GCA consider gun ownership WRONG -> Banning guns does not hamper freedom.

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 Direction

(they do not believe in previous sentence)

Since GCA regard gun ownership as wrong, they do not think that gun owners are entitled to any

consideration.

Detail Information

Names of people who are GCA.

GCA use the same argument to support all controls. GCA consider owning a gun same as driving a car badly. GCA consider owing a gun WRONG.

For instance Example

Author will expand on the idea presented above what kind of consideration

Infer the meaning from the CONTEXT - Per them,

owning guns is bad. Gun owners do not actually make a choice for

owning or not owning guns.

It happens automatically because of the stated reasons (sexual inadequacy and 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.

In fact adds along same direction

Author presented GCA views of gun owners in P2 Now he presents literature findings.

Study presented view of gun owners held by anti-gun advocates (AGA)

Gun owners are horrible people.

Authors view of AGA view

AGA view is baseless no empirical support.

AGA view of gun owners presented study of literature Per the author, AGA view is baseless.

GUNS_PARA 4

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 Authors View

Not all controls call for disarmament or are anti-gun.

But Change in Direction

Anti-gun views are most popular in gun control debates.

Explains how gun lobby uses the anti-gun views of

GCA against GCA.

Not all controls are anti-gun But anti-gun views are most popular in the debate over

gun control as gun lobby use these views to their

advantage.

For Presents reason

Anti-gun views are most popular in gun control debates

because these views of GCA are used by gun supporters.

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 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 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. 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 opposing views on similar controls for guns vs. cars.

Their difference in views is justified.The basis for controls is different.The purpose of controls is different.

GCA use the same argument to support all controls.

GCA consider owning a gun same as driving a car badly.

GCA consider owing a gun WRONG.

Introduces an argument against gun owners

Shows how the argument is not justified

AGA view of gun owners presented study of literature

Per the author, AGA view is baseless.

Not all controls are anti-gun But anti-gun views are most popular in

the debate over gun control as gun lobby use these views to their advantage.

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



In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Re

key strategies to ace rc - may_23.pdf

Documents