Hi Abhishek,
Here are my 2 cents on this.
C Vs D.
Before starting, I would accept that initially even I was inclined towards D, but then that's how i strike off it.
Q3 Is infer type question. One that can pass fact test based upon the info. mentioned in the argument.
Now lets see D first.
(D) are able to communicate verbally with relative ease.
First, there is nothing in arg to prove this.
Second,
(Moreover, "cured" is under inverted commas which gives me a feeling that these people do not consider themselves impaired whatsoever.)
Hence, clearly they are able to communicate and interact much more effectively than people with autism normally do.Now there is a big difference between what they feel and whether they can actually speak effectively. In short this option infers too much.
In such questions ask yourself, can i convince someone about this point using only the facts from the argument.
Coming to C.
Now this is something that we can infer or logically deduct from the argument. ( If u look into the explanation mentioned in my earlier thread for this option.)
"many autistics reject the premise that they need to be “cured” at all.These people, who prefer the term “autistics” to “people with autism,..."
What does this mean:
1.They don't think they need to be cured at all.
2.They believe eradicating their autism would wipe out something central to their personalities.
3.And then the rest of the para explains their view towards the treatments.
Now ask yourself can you convince someone about option C "would not be in favor of genetic manipulation as a way to eliminate their autism", using above details?
IMO yes u can.
Hope i answered your query
Regards.
r t
abhishek05 wrote:
My answers
1.E
2.A
3.D
4.C
wasted 2 mins on Q.3.....My take on this:
what can be inferred about people who preferred to be called “autistics” rather than “people with autism:
These autistics reject the premise that they need to be “cured” at all. So they will not favour genetic manipulation as a method to cure their autism.
Somehow I don't find this as convincing as option D.
Option D says "are able to communicate verbally with relative ease"
P1 provides info that autism is a condition which impairs ability of an individual to communicate/interact with others.Lists the two extremes and variety of symptoms between these extremes.
Now,P3 provides info that many people suffering with autism reject the premise that they need to be “cured” at all. These people prefer the term “autistics” to “people with autism".They argue that curing their autism will take away something very important to their personality.
(Moreover, "cured" is under inverted commas which gives me a feeling that these people do not consider themselves impaired whatsoever.)
Hence, clearly they are able to communicate and interact much more effectively than people with autism normally do.
Please explain, where am I going wrong???