ljoandc wrote:1) What suggestions do you have for tackling author's attitude questions? I've been having trouble with that in reading comprehension, especially for questions where the answer choices are words pulled from the passage itself ("Which one of the following in its context in the passage most clearly reveals the attitude of the author towards the proponents of the Modern Movement?" PT 44, sec 1, passage 4). An explanation of that question might help, haha.
While reading the passage, you need to underline (or in some way denote) any segment where the author writes something in that shows her attitude towards what she's discussing. That should give you an overview.
First, you need to separate it into three categories - neutral, positive, negative. If you can get it down to one of those three, then you should eliminate 3 ACs right there. If you can't, then we've got bigger problems.
For the ones just asking for the attitude, then between the other two, unless you have a very specific reason, pick the one that's weaker. "Qualified approval" over "Unreasoned reverence", every single time.
For the specific one they asked about, there are two general forms of that question. The first asks for something in context; the second just asks for a phrase/word that, by itself, reveals the attitude. For the latter, it's the same process as above. For the former, however, you should have denoted one of those words as author's attitude when you read the first time through. If you didn't, you're going to have to read through each one.
Here, the author clearly has a negative attitude towards the Modern Movement, finding them to focus on ideology rather than, you know, building stuff.
A - More accurately reflected this functional spirit? That sounds positive to me, so this one's out.
B - "Tended" is a hard word to use to convey attitude; here, she's just noting a trend.
C - "innovators" is how people were referring to certain architects; it shows the culture's attitude, but not the author's (since she's not calling them innovators).
D - "other aspects were conveniently ignored." - Bingo. I definitely would have underlined this the first time through; saying someone "conveniently" ignored (or "conveniently" ______, when I'm not referring to something being easy to do) conveys attitude. The author thinks the members of the movement only paid attention to things that reinforced their beliefs, conveniently ignoring anything else. That reflects her negative view.
E - This is just talking about standards in each industry - it's a fact, not attitude. This is definitely the trap answer - "degree of inaccuracy" can be used to convey something negative. Here, however, the author isn't using it to talk about the Modern Movement, but rather the subcontractors.
2) PT 44, LR section 4, question 8 - how do you approach questions that ask for "which one of the following is the most logical completion of the argument?" I find it difficult to determine which answers seem to be out of scope, or right on the point, especially since the answer choices are very similar.
These are similar to "most strongly supported" and, weirdly enough, Resolve questions. They're going to present you with 2 facts/trains of thought, and you need to squish them together to get the right answer. The one important difference here is that I'm not just looking for something that has support - I'm looking for something related to what I'm talking about. This will become important in a minute.
So here, we have an insurgent party that doesn't like the dominant party's reign. Let's call them the T Party. However, within the T Party, factions exist - and those factions are as different from each other as the T Party is to the O Party (again, just making up random names...). So these insurgents are going to have some disagreements, but they're putting them aside for now to defeat the O Party. And then, INEVITABLY, the T Party factions will have these issues come up.
So I've got a divided party coming together to defeat what they view as a bigger threat (like a supervillian teaming up with superheroes to defeat Galactus). Then, they win. Now, they have a lot of differences. I need to find an answer that talks about the handling of these differences, because that squishes my two ideas together (they have huge differences; they came together and defeated the O Party).
A - This is comparative - I don't know how long they'll stay in power.
B - Here we go. The T party is having some issues; when the last party had similar issues with a different group, it resulted in them getting defeated. If the T Party doesn't want to succumb to the same fate, it's going to have to deal with these issues before one of the factions becomes a new insurgent party and defeats the T Party.
C - Here's where that issue comes up. If I treated this just as a Most Strongly Supported question, I'd go with this answer. Heck, this answer choice almost has to be true no matter what you say in the stimulus - it's so weak. However, this is making a prediction about what the T Party will do once in power, and I don't know anything about what they're going to do. We can distinguish this from B because it draws a parallel to the situation that we did learn about; this one, however, has no parallel in the stimulus.
D - Again, a prediction we don't have a basis for. Maybe they killed the O Party.
E - Impossible? That's a really strong prediction. We know there will be problems if they don't, but saying it's going to be impossible takes it too far.
3) PT 44 (lol, I just recently finished the PT), LR section 4, question 17 - Yet another ice age question, but with cosmic dust clouds. I picked C, but the correct answer is D. I just wanted to know why D is correct answer. I haven't figured it out.
So this is a Strengthen Except question, which means I'm looking for something that either weakens or does nothing to my argument.
And this is a causal fallacy argument - dust clouds are causing ice ages. I need to strengthen that causal relationship somehow.
A - No cause, no effect. Great way to strengthen an argument. We didn't start seeing the effect until we started seeing the cause.
B - Bam, an explanation for how the cause started. Again, that strengthens it.
C - Cosmic dust cloud:volcanic dust cloud::ice age:small temp. drop. I think that's how the SATs work? This strengthens my argument by showing a similar cause resulting in a similar effect. There's a huge difference in scale between the volcano situation (smaller dust, smaller temp drop), but it's a parallel situation that shows us dust blocking the sun can affect the temperatures on Earth. That strengthens my argument that a larger-scale version could happen.
D - So we have some rocks that hit Earth, and they raise some dust up. That doesn't tell me anything about the temperature, or about intergalactic dust clouds. This really has no effect on my argument because it doesn't speak to how dust clouds and ice ages are related. Can you give me a brief line about why you think this does strengthen the argument?
E - A correlation between space dust and ice ages. Again, correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is proof for causation. So it strengthens the argument.