Confused

[ebasappa]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hey everyone,

So I have been doing EK 101 verbal, and I have learned that I should never infer anything and go strictly based off the passage info (unles otherwise stated). But I just read a passage about people watching ( passage 3, test 10) and one question said:

"according to the passage, the only real limitations to "people reading" would be the evaluator's:

I. Inability to hear
II. Lack of background info of the target
III.inablity to see

The passage clearly stated info for II, but the answer is II AND III, yet the passage said NOTHING about lack of vision... I get why it could be an answer, but the question said ACCORDING TO THE PASSAGE... so should I infer or not?...

P.s. sorry for reavealing the answer, my phone is being weird and its no letting me do that font thing

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

IIRC that passage was mostly about reading body language. So obviously an inability to see would cause problems for people reading.

 

[shaboobly]

IIRC that passage was mostly about reading body language. So obviously an inability to see would cause problems for people reading.

yes. op, you need to use logic.

 

[ebasappa]

Yet , whenever I use logic, I get the wrong answer and get an explanation at the end saying "although true, this was not stated in the passage and was inferred"...

 

[ebasappa]

Honestly, don't worry about it. I got that question wrong too for the same reason, and throughout the entire EK 101 book my verbal score never improved (fluctuating 9-11). I got a 14 VR on my last AAMC practice test. EK 101 is good practice because there's a lot of passages, not because it's the most representative or makes the most sense (especially the answer explanations).

omg yes, thank you! I was feeling a bit worried because I keep scoring 8-10 and I haven't really improved... I feel a bit better, I'll see how it goes on the actual AAMCs