key strategies to ace rc - may_23.pdf
Post on 08-Sep-2015
231 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
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. 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
-
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
-
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
Tough Vocabulary Detail- can be skipped
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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 = 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
-
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
Tough Vocabulary Detail- can be skipped
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
Simplify the Sentence Structure to understand Meaning
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)
-
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.
Violence inside the group can be linked with xenophobia
In-group hostility is less intense than the hostility toward out-group.
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.
-
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
Ethnocentrism and xenophobia are never found together since these two phenomena are different in their core features.
In-group hostility is less intense than the hostility toward out-group.
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.
OppositeThe phrase- feeling of kinship - is mentioned in the third paragraph, but it has been used to talk about in-group loyalty/favoritism.
Violence inside the group can be linked with xenophobia
-
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.
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.
-
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 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 sincesuch 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.
-
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.
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
-
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. 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
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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
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
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
or police select to receive permits.
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
-
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 Re
top related