The EK has helped me but some of their reasoning / questions just makes me want to throw the book out the window. Sometimes they want you to use common sense assumptions and sometimes that gets you into trouble. No way of knowing when to use either.
For example:
Question: The passage provides examples for the assertion that copywriters often use "provocative visuals" (line 17). Which of the following examples would be commonly considered provocative.
I Images of puppies / kittens
II pics of baby faces
III attractive women used to sell cars
Now III is the obvious answer that jumped out. But trying to subdue that outside logic I thought about what was written. The author states that provocative = things that get immediate attention (instincts). He then lists examples of each and then at the end makes the remark: problem with such images (related to all 3 examples) is that they are unrelated to the product.
I looked at the wording of the question and "commonly" is what changed my mind. What would be thought of as provocative by everyone alike. Hot girls might not catch young kids or women. And baby stuff will mostly pertain only to women (maternal instinct). Cuteness however seemed like the most universal by both young, male, female alike.
The answer was III and the reasoning was that attractive women have nothing to do with the product . . .
Nowhere does the author state / imply that having nothing to do with the product made something more or less provocative.
For example:
Question: The passage provides examples for the assertion that copywriters often use "provocative visuals" (line 17). Which of the following examples would be commonly considered provocative.
I Images of puppies / kittens
II pics of baby faces
III attractive women used to sell cars
Now III is the obvious answer that jumped out. But trying to subdue that outside logic I thought about what was written. The author states that provocative = things that get immediate attention (instincts). He then lists examples of each and then at the end makes the remark: problem with such images (related to all 3 examples) is that they are unrelated to the product.
I looked at the wording of the question and "commonly" is what changed my mind. What would be thought of as provocative by everyone alike. Hot girls might not catch young kids or women. And baby stuff will mostly pertain only to women (maternal instinct). Cuteness however seemed like the most universal by both young, male, female alike.
The answer was III and the reasoning was that attractive women have nothing to do with the product . . .
Nowhere does the author state / imply that having nothing to do with the product made something more or less provocative.