You are on page 1of 70

How to Ace

Reading Comprehension
An e-GMAT Live Session

3 PARTS TO THIS WEBINAR

The Company

RC
Strategies

The People
12 minutes

100 minutes

20 minutes

e-GMAT the company

Sept2011 to help non-natives


6600+ customers and counting
More non native reviews than
any other test prep company.

Hire the best and brightest


Full time dedication

Learning personalized to the learner


Engage all three senses (reading,
vision, auditory)

More non-native success stories


250

Most # of debriefs

Real Reviews
Real People = True Reviews

Check them out!!

About e-GMAT Faculty

Top Ranker in CBSE


98 percentile on GMAT
Top ranker in BITS Pilani 5 years of GMAT
teaching experience

99+ percentile on
many exams
including
GMAT

Best Expert on GC
Past HT editor

Guest lecturer at IIT


Madras
10+ years of GMAT
teaching experience

1. Learning

760, ISB
Authored Vocabulary
Advantage, Pearson

750 in 1 Week
IESE Spain, GSB
Chicago

2. Teaching Excellence

3. Customer Success

About e-GMAT Faculty

1. Voted Best Presenter in GMATClubs 1 Million post events.


Twice as many excellent ratings as the closest contestant.

1 MM Best Presenter
Competition
Princeton

GMAT Pill
e-GMAT

2.
3.
4.

9
7

18
23

High Ratings
55

1. Learning
2. Teaching
Excellence
3. Customer
Success

0
20
40
60
Published more articles on GMATClubs Verbal forum than every other test prep company
combined.
Member of the month for 2012.
Every one Full Time on e-GMAT

2 Kinds of courses
Verbal Online

Verbal Live Prep

VLP = VO + Live Sessions


+ 3 Workshops + Score
Improvement Guarantee
Worlds most comprehensive
Online course

Worlds most comprehensive


Live course

July Batch Calendar

Things to note

1. More comprehensive than any other course


2. All Live Sessions take place on weekends
3. 7:00 am Pacific = 7:30 PM IST

Buy Once Attend Multiple batches


1. Current Batch July 18
2. Next Batch Aug 9
3. Following Batch Aug 30

Join now and attend Multiple batches


New batch starts every 20 days (Aug 9)

Verbal Live Prep provides more of everything

5
-

YES

3 PARTS TO THIS WEBINAR

The Company

SC
Strategies

The People
12 minutes

100 minutes

20 minutes

Tell us about your RC approach

Passage 1

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. 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 guncontrol, 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 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.

guns are weapons that make people sexually inadequate


or perverse.

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.

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 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.

The author wants to criticize the argument proposed by guncontrol advocates on the basis that they are overly harsh in
their estimate of the motivations of gun-owners.

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.

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.

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.

Some gun-control advocates do not believe that controls


over the possession of guns interferes with peoples right
to freedom.

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 environment
2. Few new concepts
3. 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
answer

Eliminate answer
choices

This process improves accuracy and saves time since it minimizes the need to re-read the passage.

Why do people falter in RC?

Cannot comprehend the


passage

Not an active reader


Passage is of unfamiliar topic
Difficult vocabulary in the
passage
Complicated sentences

Do not know how to


approach the question

Commit silly mistakes

Apply these key reading strategies on all passages.

Get
Immersed
in the
passage

Summarize
& predict
whats next

Predict the
thoughts
through
keywords

Shorten
the
technical
terms &
names

Identify &
quickly go
through the
Details

Understand
Sentence
Structure

Infer
Meaning of
Difficult
Words

Review all Paragraph Summaries Together

The Improvement Triangle


Success

3. Desire

Stay focused while


applying

1. Belief
In the methods that will
lead to success

2. Behavior
Work to improve your skills
in applying the methods

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

Gun owners hysterically oppose controls


controls that are similar to those controls
that they would support
if cars were being regulated
instead of guns

hysterically oppose controls that are


essentially indistinguishable from those

- gun owners

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

Passage about Guns owning & control


Author may present view points that are
Pro- gun
Anti-gun
Or both

firearms and to cars.

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

Above all, automobile regulation is not


premised on the idea that cars are evils from

Above all Same Direction


Explains how the reason behind car regulation is
different from the reason behind gun regulation.

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.

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.

Nor are
Same Direction (previous sentence not premised)
Explains that purpose of car controls is different
from the purpose of gun controls.

- gun owners

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

But Change in Direction


terms refer to the argument in para 1.
He introduces a group called
gun control advocates = GCA

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.

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

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.

For instance Example


Author will expand on the idea presented above
what kind of consideration

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.

Detail Information
Names of people who are GCA.
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)

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.

In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun


control literature was conducted for the

In fact adds along same direction


Author presented GCA views of gun owners in P2
Now he presents literature findings.

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

Study presented view of gun owners held by


anti-gun advocates (AGA)
Gun owners are horrible people.

psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain

death on innocent creatures, both human and


otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is

Authors view of AGA view


AGA view is baseless no empirical support.

tantamount to bigotryfor it has no empirical

basis in fact.

AGA view of gun owners presented study of literature


Per the author, AGA view is baseless.

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 antigun 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,"

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.
For Presents reason
Anti-gun views are most popular in gun control debates
because these views of GCA are used by gun supporters.
Explains how gun lobby uses the anti-gun views of
GCA against GCA.

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.

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.

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.

Introduces an argument against gun owners


Shows how the argument is not justified

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.

Introduces the group GCA - that proposed the argument


Presents the views of GCA

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.

Presents views of another category AGA of GCA


States that such views are baseless.

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.

Reasons out why AG views overpower all GCA views


Shows how gun lobby uses AG views against GCA

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.

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.

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.

According to some advocates of guncontrol, 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 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.

guns are weapons that make people sexually inadequate


or perverse.

Detail Question
Global detail since the views of GCA have been presented at multiple places. Use POE to find the answer.

owning guns ultimately leads to getting rid of sexual


adequacy.

Out of Context
Passage does not say anything about getting rid of
sexual inadequacy.

gun owners just want to adjust well in their society and


hence they make a choice that is superfluous in nature.

Out of Scope
The author has not touched on the gun-owners
motivation to adjust better in the society.

guns have power that can be used against perverts who


indulge in crimes such as sexual molestation which stems
from their sexual inadequacy.

iSWAT
Uses similar terms
But in different context

owning guns is a decision that is an outcome of some


abnormal behavior.

CORRECT
Reword of following statement in Para 2 last sentence
... gun ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue,
it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual
inadequacy or perversion

guns are weapons that make people sexually inadequate


or perverse.

iSWAT
Per the GCA gun ownership is display (manifestation)
of sexual inadequacy. This choice reverses the stated
relationship

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.

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 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.

The author wants to criticize the argument proposed by guncontrol advocates on the basis that they are overly harsh in
their estimate of the motivations of gun-owners.

Paragraph 1

Introduces an argument against gun owners


Shows how the argument is not justified

Paragraph 2

Introduces the group GCA - that proposed the argument


Presents the views of GCA

Paragraph 3

Presents views of another category AGA of GCA


States that such views are baseless.

Paragraph 4

Reasons out why AG views overpower all GCA views


Shows how gun lobby uses AG views against GCA

Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not justified
and how such argument is being used against GCA

Pre-Thought Main Point


Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not justified and how such argument is being used against GCA .

The author seeks to warn gun-advocates that their agenda,


although well-meaning and credible, will ultimately lead to
gun-owners buying more guns to prove the advocates
wrong.

Out of Scope
Passage is not written in advisory/warning form.
It is not addressed to GCA.
Does not talk about any such consequence.

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.

iSWAT
Does not capture the complete essence.
Uses similar terms used in the passage.
The purpose of these terms in the passage is different
from what is stated here.

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.

CORRECT
Captures essence of passage as pre-thought
1st part Para 1, 2, 3
2nd part Para 4

The author put forth his progressive thinking by


highlighting how a few gun-control advocates have led to
infringements of the rights of gun-owners.

Out of Scope
Does not contain progressive thinking.
Passage does not say that such infringement happens.

The author wants to criticize the argument proposed by guncontrol advocates on the basis that they are overly harsh in
their estimate of the motivations of gun-owners.

Partial Scope
Only captures partial essence as indicated in para 1,
2,3.

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.

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.

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.

Some gun-control advocates do not believe that controls


over the possession of guns interferes with peoples right
to freedom.

Global Inference
Question to be solved by POE since we have to find the statement that CANNOT be inferred from the passage.

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.

Can be Inferred
Para 3 - demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose
concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both
human and otherwise.
CORRECT
Per Para 2 For these advocates, just owning a gun is
analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. OWNING a GUN is compared to driving rashly
not USING a GUN.

There are possible gun-control proposals that do not


solely rely on taking away guns from gun-owners.

Can be Inferred
Para 4 Of course, disarmament is not the only possible
control scheme.

Gun owners show excessive emotions toward controls


over possession of guns.

Can be Inferred
Para 1 It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically
oppose controls...

Some gun-control advocates do not believe that controls


over the possession of guns interferes with peoples right
to freedom.

Can be Inferred
Para 2 Because these advocates regard gun ownership as
inherently wrong, they do not believe that banning guns
implicates any issue of freedom of choice.

What is the optimum approach for RC?

Read and
COMPREHEND the
passage well enough
to create passage
summary

Pre-Think the
answer

Eliminate 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.

Get
Immersed
in the
passage

Summarize
& predict
whats next

Predict the
thoughts
through
keywords

Shorten
the
technical
terms &
names

Identify &
quickly go
through the
Details

Understand
Sentence
Structure

Infer
Meaning of
Difficult
Words

Review all Paragraph Summaries Together

The Improvement Triangle


Success

3. Desire

Stay focused while


applying

1. Belief
In the methods that will
lead to success

2. Behavior
Work to improve your skills
in applying the methods

Next Steps
1. Solve this passage again applying the reading strategies
2. 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 ones
4. Solve the passage in PDF, applying the reading strategies
5. Review the reading strategies again
6. Do exercise questions
Not only improved performance but also be able to point out mistakes
clearly.

Passage 2

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-cumsentiment 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 ingroup 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 ingroup/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 ingroup 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.

Bitterness within ones own group can sometimes be


linked with xenophobia.

A feeling of kinship within group members promotes outgroup hostility.

In-group favoritism and out-group hostility are not


increased by the same factors.

Hostility toward out-group has no bearing on the in-group


dynamics.

Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/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 ingroup 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 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.
It may be more natural to adjust within the group since
such adjustments are done without any pressure of
reciprocity.

Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/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 ingroup 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:
i.
In-group favoritism will occur only without outgroup hostility.
ii. There is a necessary pre-condition to in-group
favoritism.
iii. Out-group hostility can be accompanied by ingroup favoritism, although their respective
causes may be different.
only i
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. 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-cumsentiment 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 ingroup 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 = EC

EC

ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic inTough Vocabulary Detail- can be skipped

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,

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

subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil.


1.
2.

Talk about more general


definition of EC
Discuss the reasons
behind such behavior

In-group vs. outgroup behavior

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.

Although Contrast
EC term is new
BUT concept is not new

Reiterate the definition of EC by stating Darwins views


1. Loyalty within group = intragroup cooperation
2. Hostility toward out group = intergroup competition
Correlation exists between 1 and 2.

Bordering on the extreme, one definition of


ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/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.

Presents definition of EC - Correlation between


1. Love for own group
2. Hostility for outside group.

Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are


Tough Vocabulary Detail- can be skipped
some variations of EC

deemed to be intimately connected with


XP

xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cumxenophobia = XP

sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike


and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the
alien, and everything that the stranger or alien

EC connected with XP
XP = dislike towards strange 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.

States same fact in other words. If EC exists, so does


XP and vice versa. Both co-exist.

But Contrast
Some people think they are not correlated.
Describes new term XP
XP and EC are connected to each other.
Some people think otherwise.
May be next para talks about how they are not connected

Van den Berghe points out that it would be


maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable

Adaptive means practical or adjustment


mal has -ve connotation as in malpractice, etc.
So this implies not practical

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.
More adjustment may be required with out-group people and
people may expect more in return of cooperation with outgroup 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

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

Also Same Direction


Passage will say that EC and XP do not always co-exist
Infer the Meaning from Context
Note 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Experimental work presents views as in Para 3

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.
Hostility within group
Competition within group
Analyses of other data also show:
EC and XP not necessarily correlated
May be found together in certain situations
but their triggers are different

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.

Defines EC

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.

Defines XP. States that EC and XP are connected

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.

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
Common ancestry increases in-group
love
In-group does not mean out-group
hostility. Cooperation can exist with outgroup people if it is beneficial.

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, ingroup 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.

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.

Shows that XP cannot be caused by EC (goes against P2)

Provides evidence saying EC and XP are not connected


(goes against P2 and along P3)

Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/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 ingroup 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.

Bitterness within ones own group can sometimes be


linked with xenophobia.

A feeling of kinship within group members promotes outgroup hostility.

In-group favoritism and out-group hostility are not


increased by the same factors.

Hostility toward out-group has no bearing on the in-group


dynamics.

Global Inference
Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not justified and how such argument is being used against GCA .

Ethnocentrism and xenophobia are never found together


since these two phenomena are different in their core
features.

Bitterness within ones own group can sometimes be


linked with xenophobia.

iSWAT
Per the passage, it is not necessary that XP and EC may not
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.

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.

A feeling of kinship within group members promotes outgroup hostility.

iSWAT
The phrase- feeling of kinship - is mentioned in the third paragraph,
but it has been used to talk about in-group loyalty/favoritism.

In-group favoritism and out-group hostility are not


increased by the same factors.

Opposite
Passage clearly states While both can be enhanced by
competition and external threats

Hostility toward out-group has no bearing on the in-group


dynamics.

Opposite
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. From the above extract, it is amply clear that
under certain circumstances, the out-group hostility may be
duplicated within the group.

Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/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 ingroup 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 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.
It may be more natural to adjust within the group since
such adjustments are done without any pressure of
reciprocity.

Van den Berghe points out that it would be


maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable

Adaptive means practical or adjustment


mal has -ve connotation as in malpractice, etc.
So this implies not practical

result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he


reminds us, usually involves some claim of
Comparison stated between the level
of adjustment
andor
expectation
of a
common
ancestry (real
fictive), and
reciprocity between in-group and
propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
out-group people
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.
More adjustment may be required with out-group people and
people may expect more in return of cooperation with outgroup 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

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.

Out of Context
Distorts 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).

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.

iSWAT
1st 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.

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.

CORRECT
Reword of the stated part of the passage.

It may be relatively easier to adjust among groups as one


is constantly trying to impress other groups with
reciprocity of gestures.

iSWAT
Firstly, 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.

It may be more natural to adjust within the group since


such adjustments are done without any pressure of
reciprocity.

iSWAT
There is no stated causal relationship between
level/ease of adjustment and reciprocity of gestures.

Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/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 ingroup 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:
i.
In-group favoritism will occur only without outgroup hostility.
ii. There is a necessary pre-condition to in-group
favoritism.
iii. Out-group hostility can be accompanied by ingroup favoritism, although their respective
causes may be different.
only i
i & iii
ii & iii
only ii
i & ii

Specific Inference
The question pertains to results of recent experimental work done in psychology.

i.
ii.
iii.

In-group favoritism will occur only without outgroup hostility.


There is a necessary pre-condition to in-group
favoritism.
Out-group hostility can be accompanied by in-group
favoritism, although their respective causes may be
different.

Incorrect
The 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.

only i

Incorrect
I: Not in the passage
III: 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.

i & iii

Incorrect
Statement II is correct but statement III is not.

ii & iii
only ii
i & ii

CORRECT
Statement 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.
Incorrect
Statement II is correct but statement I is not.

How to prepare for RC?


Learn question specific processes
Various types of inference, detail,
and structure questions
e-GMAT RC Course contains question
specific concept files to help you
master each question category

Learn the reading strategies


Practice and master the reading
strategies
e-GMAT RC Course contains special
core skills files that help you
master reading strategies

Practice on passages of varied


subject matter
e-GMAT RC Course contains over 50
passages spanning multiple subject
matter areas to help you become
comfortable.

Practice with the expert in live


sessions
Get a reality check of your skill
level through workshops
Special RC sessions and workshops
included in Verbal Live Prep course.

Apply these key reading strategies on all passages.

Get
Immersed
in the
passage

Summarize
& predict
whats next

Predict the
thoughts
through
keywords

Shorten
the
technical
terms &
names

Identify &
quickly go
through the
Details

Understand
Sentence
Structure

Infer
Meaning of
Difficult
Words

Review all Paragraph Summaries Together

3 PARTS TO THIS WEBINAR

The Company

The People
12 minutes

100 minutes

20 minutes