Most important step in RC - Practice questions Mon Wed Fri

Hi, I've a question specially on RC inference and CR inference question. Actually, 'inference' question is tested both in RC and in CR. Why the same thing tested in 2 separate places?. Are these questions (RC inference and CR inference) have to track in same way?. If not, then WHY GMAC test the same thing in 2 different places?
Thanks__

Para 1: HRE: its definition and scope
Para 2: HRE particularly useful for younger age groups
Para 2: Awareness extended to knowing scope

Main Point: HRE: Its definition and benefits, particularly to younger age groups.

workout u1983 aragonn gmatexam439
Can you grade my understanding from 0 to 5?

Hi bro,

I would correct just one thing in your summary above: the paragraphs are talking about the impact on young leaders NOT younger age groups. Always be very specific about details that you map in GMAT. Missing even a small word could let you down.

Your individual summaries are very good, though!

Best Regards.

Hi bro,

Thank you for the insights.

I have just 1 point to add: while writing the summaries during practice sessions one can write them in any language they feel comfortable in. For instance, most of my summaries were in symbol language; this helped me save a few precious seconds.

Best Regards.

Hi,

"Are these questions (RC inference and CR inference) have to track in same way?" I didn't understand the questions you are trying to ask; could you please rephrase.

Best Regards.

Could you help me by answering the bold questions?
Thanks__

AsadAbu - in RC there is a whole chapter defined as 'CR in RC'. nothing special, just same critical reasoning but on RC. Same concepts need to be applied on these questions as well. Inference questions are really very common, Just in CR you have a very small abstract to read and come to a term, in RC full passage is in scope. Now come to your question of why tested at two places. I can just imagine this. CR is a quiet challenge for most people and when applied on RC it become monster. Only by right approach this monster can be beaten. You better choose your weapons carefully

gmatexam439 - Changed your thread to sticky, after all its a crucial thread. I think you should name of topic to - most important step in RC.

P.S. - I am very bad with names.

Hi bro,

Well can't say as to why the same thing is tested twice but as aragonn stated, within an RC it's more difficult to analyze the inferences. Remember that GMAT is a mental exam - there is no golden trick to solve any question!

All the best with prep.

Updated bro

I took the name you suggested -- it makes sense, though!

Hi Honorable Expert (RonPurewal, MartyMurray, GMATNinja, sayantanc2k, VeritasPrepBrian, egmat, @AjiteshArun)
Could you help me by explaining a bit on the above question, please?
Thanks__

While there are Inference type questions in both Critical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, answering Critical Reasoning Inference questions does not involve using quite the same skills that are used to answer Reading Comprehension Inference questions.

To answer a Critical Reasoning Inference question, you have to determine what can be inferred from a limited set of statements. All the information that you could use in choosing the answer is presented to you in a short passage. So, your task is simply to determine what can be properly inferred from that limited set of information. The correct answer differs from the incorrect answers in that the limited set of information supports the correct answer but does not support the other answers, and choosing correctly among the answer choices is mostly a matter of using logic and not getting seduced into choosing a seemingly correct but actually illogical trap answer.

Reading Comprehension is different from Critical Reasoning in general in that, whereas a Critical Reasoning question presents you with a limited amount of information, a Reading Comprehension question uses a much longer passage containing all kinds of information, much of which is not germane to the question being asked.

So, answering a Reading Comprehension Inference question requires not only determining what can be inferred from the passage, but also determining what information presented in the passage is even relevant for determining which answer choice is correct. Also, each of the Reading Comprehension Inference question answer choices may be closely related to a set of information in the passage different from that set of information that is related to the other choices. So, in answering a Reading Comprehension Inference question, not only do you have to find information to support the correct answer, you may have to consider somewhat different information when evaluating each choice in the same question.

So, in comparison with correctly answering Critical Reasoning Inference questions, correctly answering Reading Comprehension Inference questions is less a matter of using logic and not getting tricked and more a matter of using skills that are not really necessary for answering Critical Reasoning Inference questions, skills related to finding information, correctly interpreting statements, and determining which information is relevant.

Exercise for 29 October 2018

Note: Try to summarize the 3 paragraphs below individually and then try to come up with a single line summary/title for the extract. I strongly encourage you to do this exercise mentally - without writing the summaries anywhere. Once done, type your summary/title below and read the article and it's title and match the article's summary with yours. Both the summaries should be close enough. Try to time yourself - take no more than 3 minutes to complete this activity.

Sample:
In the cluster analysis of the 327 psilocybin sessions performed by Studerus et al (2010), the two factors from the ASC questionnaire that receive the highest scores both related to visual imagery. The first was ‘Elementary Imagery’ (including items such as ‘I saw colours before me in total darkness or with closed eyes’) and the second was ‘Complex Imagery’ (with items like ‘I could see pictures from my past or fantasy extremely clearly’). Scores for these same factors were also increased after LSD consumption (Kraehenmann et al. 2017). In respect to qualitative self-report data, one study found that autobiographical memories were judged to be both ‘more visual’ and ‘more vivid’ after taking psilocybin (Carhart-Harris et al. 2012). LSD was also found to enhance dream-like imagery in a lab-based setting (Kraehenmann et al. 2017), and self-reports of hallucinogen experiences showed high semantic similarity with dream reports across large community-based self-report repositories (Sanz and Tagliazucchi 2018).

The factor ‘Changed Meaning of Percepts’ captures reports of objects in an individual’s environment as appearing more salient and personally significant than they ordinarily do. Here, participants who have taken psychedelics are more likely to endorse items such as ‘Objects around me engaged me emotionally much more than usual’ (Studerus et al. 2010). Psilocybin and LSD have also been found to enhance the subjective experience of colour (Hartman and Hollister 1963). For example, after-images are described as containing more colours, and the flicker-based generation of colour experience is said to be enhanced. These reports mirror those that are commonly found in popular writing, such as those found in Aldous Huxley's book ‘Heaven and Hell: First and most important is the experience of light. Everything seen by those who visit the mind’s antipodes is brilliantly illuminated and seems to shine from within. All colours are intensified to a pitch far beyond anything seen in the normal state, and at the same time the mind’s capacity for recognizing fine distinctions of tone and hue is notably heightened’. (1956, 89).

However, it is unclear to what extent these reports reflect objective improvements in colour perception, for laboratory-based studies have failed to find any evidence of visual improvements as the result of ingesting psychedelics. In one study, both psilocybin and LSD were found to impair objective measures of hue discrimination despite the participants’ subjective reports of enhanced colour perception (Hartman and Hollister 1963). Another study found no evidence that psilocybin was associated with increased sensitivity to stimulus contrast or brightness (Carter et al. 2004). It is an open question how the subjective increase in the richness and vividness of colour experience might be reconciled with the fact that psychedelics are not associated with any objective improvements in colour or brightness perception.

Exercise for 31 October 2018

Note: Try to summarize the 2 paragraphs below individually and then try to come up with a single line summary/title for the extract. I strongly encourage you to do this exercise mentally - without writing the summaries anywhere. Once done, type your summary/title below and read the article and it's title and match the article's summary with yours. Both the summaries should be close enough. Try to time yourself - take no more than 3 minutes to complete this activity.

Sample:The 1973 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended—Public Law 93–205) alleviated concerns of American mammalogists that their government would allow or directly cause extinction or wide-scale extirpations of native mammals. However, in the United States as well as globally, most large carnivores have experienced substantial range contractions and population reductions; in fact, the American black bear (Ursus americanus) is the world’s only large terrestrial carnivore species that has a global population of more than 200,000 and is one of the very few whose population trend is not “decreasing” (Ripple et al. 2014). Even in areas still occupied by large carnivores, predator removal locally in less-developed landscapes causes concern about nontarget mortality of certain rare species and indirect effects on biodiversity and ecosystem function from disruption of “top-down forcing” (sensu Estes et al. 2011; Bergstrom et al. 2014). In the United States, legal public harvest takes 2.5 million native carnivores annually (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2014). Additional human-caused mortality of carnivores due to poaching and road-kill is hard to quantify but may be higher than commonly assumed. Vehicles on roads, for example, have killed 13% of the gray wolf (C. lupus) population annually in Wisconsin (Treves et al., this issue). Lethal control of large carnivores in the United States by professional federal, state, and private agents constitutes a fraction of the total human-caused mortalities nationwide, but they are done primarily to benefit livestock producers in western states, often intensely at a very local scale (e.g., 884 coyotes [Canis latrans] killed on a single ranch in Nevada in a 2-year period by aerial gunning—Knudson 2015), and they can result in removal of 1 or more carnivore species from local ecosystems (Bergstrom et al. 2014).

Wildlife Services, a division of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Services, is tasked by law “to provide Federal leadership and expertise to resolve wildlife conflicts to allow people and wildlife to coexist” (Wildlife Services 2015). Wildlife Services’ research scientists do important studies on nonlethal methods of reducing carnivore–livestock conflict (e.g., Stone et al., this issue), but its field operations in the western United States have been criticized for their over-reliance on lethal means of resolving wildlife conflicts with livestock (Government Accountability Office [GAO] 1995; Niemeyer 2010; ASM 2012; Bergstrom et al. 2014). In Fiscal Year 2013, Wildlife Services killed > 75,000 coyotes (not counting 366 dens destroyed), 320 gray wolves, 345 cougars (Puma concolor), 3,546 red and gray foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cinereoargenteus, respectively), and 372 badgers (Taxidea taxus—Wildlife Services 2015). The annual number of control kills of coyotes has remained remarkably constant since 1939, varying between 50,000 and 110,000 and has exceeded 70,000 annually since 1985 (Berger 2006; Bergstrom et al. 2014). Also typical, Wildlife Services in Fiscal Year 2013 unintentionally killed 397 river otters (Lontra canadensis), 14 kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis), and 41 swift foxes (V. velox—Wildlife Services 2015). Wildlife Services does not monitor populations of species it targets for control nor those unintentionally killed, but one of the few published estimates of an overall mortality rate is that Wildlife Services, along with state managers, removed 23.2% of the estimated coyote population of Wyoming in 1994–1995 (Taylor et al. 2009). This level of human-caused mortality of mammalian predators may have negative unintended consequences for native ecosystems and biodiversity. Lethal control of carnivores may also be unnecessary and counterproductive to its ostensible goals.

My Thoughts:
Para 1: Despite an amendment "ESA" carnivore species are killed by humans and are largely endangered
Para 2: The wildlife services kill carnivore species intentionally/non-intentionally that may cause imbalances in an ecosystem

Overall: Despite human efforts carnivore species are endangered.

Hi gmatexam439 great initiative. Will make this a routine from tomorrow. Any sources for dense social science passages ?


Regards

Posted from my mobile device

Thank you bro and make sure to follow the instructions.

I generally used Oxford Journals and Scientific American during my prep phase. I will find a good source and post that here.

All the best.