Answering the "Which of the following would most challenge the author?"

[Melomare17]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Ok soo I've been doing a lot of practice for VR, and I'm doing pretty well. However, I seem to constantly be missing the "which of the following statements would most challenge the author" questions, and am not really sure how to go about tackling this type of question. From what I've seen, the other question types I seem to be good at (at least compared to this type).

Any advice???

 

[indianjatt]

Ok soo I've been doing a lot of practice for VR, and I'm doing pretty well. However, I seem to constantly be missing the "which of the following statements would most challenge the author" questions, and am not really sure how to go about tackling this type of question. From what I've seen, the other question types I seem to be good at (at least compared to this type).

Any advice???

When it comes to questions like these, try to keep the authors main point in mind and then look out for all odd answers (those which contradict his view point).

I know this may seem obvious but I think it works well.

 

[cfrost]

These are usually some of the toughest questions. When I was doing these I would always go through the answer choices and ask myself: "If this is true, could the author's argument still be valid?" The correct answer is always the one that undermines something fundamental about the authors argument. So, if answer choice is correct, the author can't possibly be correct. The problem is it's really easy to get side tracked by the answer choices that would hurt the authors argument but not undermine it.

Here's a simplified example:
Let's say the author argues that people shouldn't be able to vote until their 25 years old because young people don't research anything before they vote.

The question is, which of the following would must undermine the author's argument.
A) A study proves that young people research issues just as much as older people before they vote.
B) A study that proves senior citizens rarely research anything before they vote.
C) When polled, young people are rarely aware of current events
D) A study shows that 26 year olds are just as misinformed about current events as 18 year olds.

Going through the answer choices, only answer A totally undermines the authors argument. If it is true, the justification given for changing the voting age is wrong. Answers B and D might hurt the author's argument but it could still be true. We can eliminate C because it supports the author's argument

 

[whiteshadodw]

These are usually some of the toughest questions. When I was doing these I would always go through the answer choices and ask myself: "If this is true, could the author's argument still be valid?" The correct answer is always the one that undermines something fundamental about the authors argument. So, if answer choice is correct, the author can't possibly be correct. The problem is it's really easy to get side tracked by the answer choices that would hurt the authors argument but not undermine it.

Here's a simplified example:
Let's say the author argues that people shouldn't be able to vote until their 25 years old because young people don't research anything before they vote.

The question is, which of the following would must undermine the author's argument.
A) A study proves that young people research issues just as much as older people before they vote.
B) A study that proves senior citizens rarely research anything before they vote.
C) When polled, young people are rarely aware of current events
D) A study shows that 26 year olds are just as misinformed about current events as 18 year olds.

Going through the answer choices, only answer A totally undermines the authors argument. If it is true, the justification given for changing the voting age is wrong. Answers B and D might hurt the author's argument but it could still be true. We can eliminate C because it supports the author's argument

this is a GREAT example. except, i would get stuck between A and B. however, "a study that proves senior citizens rarely research anything before they vote" proves nothing about young people not doing their research. this is a logical fallacy, it also doesn't directly contradict the author's main point.

 

[music2doc]

this is a GREAT example. except, i would get stuck between A and B. however, "a study that proves senior citizens rarely research anything before they vote" proves nothing about young people not doing their research. this is a logical fallacy, it also doesn't directly contradict the author's main point.

B is simply irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the author's argument whatsoever. The author said nothing about senior citizens (according to the prior statement). Although you could ASSUME that the author was comparing sr citizens' knowledge to that of 18-25 y/os, the author may have been comparing them to 25-45 y/os instead. Perhaps, the author would actually agree that 65+ y/os shouldn't vote either. This, in no way, shape or form undermines the author's argument. Instead, it adds extraneous information. It is simply out of scope.

As for the others, D is really pretty neutral (could be used as a weak support OR a weak counterargument depending upon how it was used, which essentially makes it neutral) and C supports the author's argument IF (and ONLY IF) "young people" is defined or inferred to be 18-25 y/os; otherwise, C would simply be out of scope (like B).

 

[coyotelime]

I used to be bad at these too. My problem was extrapolating too much from the passage or using my own (outside)knowledge. Just pretend that the world is exactly as the author describes it, that way you won't confuse what is COMMONLY believed or even intuitive.

 

[ANEShopeful2018]

These are usually some of the toughest questions. When I was doing these I would always go through the answer choices and ask myself: "If this is true, could the author's argument still be valid?" The correct answer is always the one that undermines something fundamental about the authors argument. So, if answer choice is correct, the author can't possibly be correct. The problem is it's really easy to get side tracked by the answer choices that would hurt the authors argument but not undermine it.

Here's a simplified example:
Let's say the author argues that people shouldn't be able to vote until their 25 years old because young people don't research anything before they vote.

The question is, which of the following would must undermine the author's argument.
A) A study proves that young people research issues just as much as older people before they vote.
B) A study that proves senior citizens rarely research anything before they vote.
C) When polled, young people are rarely aware of current events
D) A study shows that 26 year olds are just as misinformed about current events as 18 year olds.

Going through the answer choices, only answer A totally undermines the authors argument. If it is true, the justification given for changing the voting age is wrong. Answers B and D might hurt the author's argument but it could still be true. We can eliminate C because it supports the author's argument

Nice example. I think Kaplan recommends a similar way of tackling these types of problems.

 

[Melomare17]

When it comes to questions like these, try to keep the authors main point in mind and then look out for all odd answers (those which contradict his view point).

I know this may seem obvious but I think it works well.

hm will keep that in mind!

These are usually some of the toughest questions. When I was doing these I would always go through the answer choices and ask myself: "If this is true, could the author's argument still be valid?" The correct answer is always the one that undermines something fundamental about the authors argument. So, if answer choice is correct, the author can't possibly be correct. The problem is it's really easy to get side tracked by the answer choices that would hurt the authors argument but not undermine it.

Here's a simplified example:
Let's say the author argues that people shouldn't be able to vote until their 25 years old because young people don't research anything before they vote.

The question is, which of the following would must undermine the author's argument.
A) A study proves that young people research issues just as much as older people before they vote.
B) A study that proves senior citizens rarely research anything before they vote.
C) When polled, young people are rarely aware of current events
D) A study shows that 26 year olds are just as misinformed about current events as 18 year olds.

Going through the answer choices, only answer A totally undermines the authors argument. If it is true, the justification given for changing the voting age is wrong. Answers B and D might hurt the author's argument but it could still be true. We can eliminate C because it supports the author's argument

wow thanks a ton! i will try this and get back to u soon!

I used to be bad at these too. My problem was extrapolating too much from the passage or using my own (outside)knowledge. Just pretend that the world is exactly as the author describes it, that way you won't confuse what is COMMONLY believed or even intuitive.

hm alrighty will do that.

thanks again for the advice everyone!

 

[NickNaylor]

Also, for these questions make sure you DON'T do the following:

1) Skim the article and use two or three sentences to choose your answer. This is an almost surefire way to pick the wrong answer that the test writers want you to pick.

2) Allow information not mentioned in the passage to impact your answer choice. This is especially difficult if the passage is on a topic that you're familiar with and/or interested in. This is another easy way that test writers get you to pick the wrong answer.

 

[vayntraubinator]

Also, for these questions make sure you DON'T do the following:

1) Skim the article and use two or three sentences to choose your answer. This is an almost surefire way to pick the wrong answer that the test writers want you to pick.

2) Allow information not mentioned in the passage to impact your answer choice. This is especially difficult if the passage is on a topic that you're familiar with and/or interested in. This is another easy way that test writers get you to pick the wrong answer.

But some of EK101 answer reasons use "common knowledge" for justification.

Is that not extrapolation?

Here's one question where reasoning uses information not in the passage. Example:

According to the passage, the descriptive term "melt-freeze cycles" is characterized by all of the following EXCEPT:


I. extremely cold weather
CORRECT: This is an exception to the characterization of "melt-freeze cycles."
We know from common experience that a melt-free cycle might be expected around 32 degree fahrenheit. The author's characterization of "extremely cold weather" falls well below this range.
II. the most critical and dangerous temperatures
WRONG:....
III. hypothermia
WRONG:.....

 

[coyotelime]

But some of EK101 answer reasons use "common knowledge" for justification.

Is that not extrapolation?

Here's one question where reasoning uses information not in the passage. Example:

According to the passage, the descriptive term "melt-freeze cycles" is characterized by all of the following EXCEPT:


I. extremely cold weather
CORRECT: This is an exception to the characterization of "melt-freeze cycles."
We know from common experience that a melt-free cycle might be expected around 32 degree fahrenheit. The author's characterization of "extremely cold weather" falls well below this range.
II. the most critical and dangerous temperatures
WRONG:....
III. hypothermia
WRONG:.....

I remember that question. I'm pretty sure it talked about it in that paragraph.

 

[NickNaylor]

But some of EK101 answer reasons use "common knowledge" for justification.

Is that not extrapolation?

Here's one question where reasoning uses information not in the passage. Example:

According to the passage, the descriptive term "melt-freeze cycles" is characterized by all of the following EXCEPT:


I. extremely cold weather
CORRECT: This is an exception to the characterization of "melt-freeze cycles."
We know from common experience that a melt-free cycle might be expected around 32 degree fahrenheit. The author's characterization of "extremely cold weather" falls well below this range.
II. the most critical and dangerous temperatures
WRONG:....
III. hypothermia
WRONG:.....

In this case the "outside knowledge" is the definition of melt and freeze. That's not the kind of outside knowledge I'm referring to.

 

[Melomare17]

hm so ive been following the advice and have been doing somewhat better, is it just a matter of more practice??