Improve GMAT Rc

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

-

Sept’2011 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 GMATClub’s 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 GMATClub’s 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 World’s most comprehensive Online course

World’s 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 author’s 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 people’s 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 what’s 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 horror—that 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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

Author’s view of AGA view AGA view is baseless – no empirical support.

tantamount to bigotry—for 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– Author’s 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 author’s 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 horror—that 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 proposal—no 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 owners—as "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 bigotry—for 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 people’s 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 people’s 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 what’s 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-à-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-à-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 one’s 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-à-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-à-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-à-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 Darwin’s 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-à-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 can’t 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-à-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-à-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 one’s 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 one’s 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-à-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 can’t 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-à-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 what’s 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