Never accept anything as true that you do not clearly know to be so

1)

Remember that ―According to the passage...‖ will almost always signal a detail
question. Use your map to predict where the details will likely be. Go back to ¶s2
and 3 to review the author‘s reasons for abandoning logic. Three answer choices
are details in this first paragraph, but (C) isn‘t supported: There‘s no evidence that
the author didn‘t understand logic.
(A): Opposite. This follows from the author‘s argument that logic serves ―only to
explain to others the things that one already knows.‖
(B): Opposite. This is a paraphrase of the last lines in paragraph three.
(C): The correct answer
(D): Opposite. This also follows from the author‘s argument that logic only explains
what one already knows.
(E): Opposite. Same as D.

2)

Another detail question. Focus your work in this question on ¶4, where geometry is
discussed. First tackle RN II, which appears in three choices. The author argues
that geometry is ―so restricted to the consideration of figures‖ that it ends up being
limited. RN II paraphrases this, eliminate (D).RN I states that geometric analysis
isn‘t useful for logical analysis. The author argues that geometry not only deals too
much with figures, but also doesn‘t ―treat anything except abstract ideas, which
seem to be of no use whatsoever,‖ suggesting that it‘s not useful for logic. RN III,
however, contradicts the author‘s point that geometry stretches the intellect at the
expense of the imagination. (B) catches the legitimate statements.
(A): Opposite. As described above.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Opposite. As above.
(D): Opposite. As above.
(E): Opposite. As above.

3)

Since you have no information in the question to narrow your focus, you can be
reasonably sure that the right answer will be something with which the author
generally disagrees. The shortcomings of the old systems and the four precepts
make up the meat of the passage, so look for something that conflicts with the
author‘s negative view of traditional methods of thought and his positive view of his
own precepts. (B) does the latter. The second precept argues that difficulties
should be broken up into many small pieces that can be individually evaluated; (B)
argues that subjects should never be broken up. The author would clearly disagree.
(A): Opposite. This follows from the author‘s argument in ¶3 that logic isn‘t
particularly useful.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Opposite. This is simply the opposite of the correct answer choice. The author
would agree that it‘s possible to understand a big problem by breaking it
down in to smaller problems.
(D): Opposite. The author argues in ¶3 that logical theorems ―serve only to explain
to others the things that one already knows...‖ which suggests that the
author is concerned with teaching abstract ideas in addition to simply learning
them.
(E): This can be inferred from the passage.
Strategy Point:
In questions that ask you to find a statement with which author disagrees, it is
often much faster to find a choice that conflicts with the main points than to
eliminate the three choices with which he would agree.