sdlife
Hi Experts, Can you tell an efficient way to solve these long RC passages? I solved this with 75% accuracy but it took me a long time. For instance, Q3, in which it is asked which of the following was mentioned for discussion of A hypothesis vs B hypothesis? Now, since there are so many details here in both the hypothesis, it took me 4 minutes to figure out what was mentioned in paragraph 2 while not mentioned in paragraph 1. This is way too much time. How do I go about improving this?
I read the entire passage and answered the first question in about 4 minutes, but the third question took me 4 minutes to go through so much detail for both theories and similarly question 4th question took about 3+ minutes because I was focused on eliminating the answer choices.
GMATNinja,
VeritasKarishma - can you please advise?
Please advise. thank you!
Great analysis,
VeritasKarishma!
sdlife, also remember that you do not need to get ALL of the questions right to get a great verbal score! If you are struggling that much with a question, make an educated guess and move on! Otherwise, you'll find yourself rushing and making mistakes on questions that you SHOULD get right.
If you're looking for a general framework for how to get a bit more efficient on RC, you might enjoy
this thread, or potentially
this video. I'm not sure whether they'll resonate with you, but they might be worth a quick peek.
Manukaran
Can someone explain why not option C for Q3.
Question #3 asks which answer choice undermines the "arboreal hypothesis." Let's take a look at answer choice (C):
Quote:
Many small animals are capable of climbing trees.
This one is tempting because the author
does mention it while listing potential flaws in the arboreal hypothesis. Remember, the arboreal hypothesis holds that the ancestors of birds started
by climbing trees and gradually began to glide to the ground, and then to fly. So if many small animals are
capable of climbing trees, then it is possible that some of those animals eventually began to glide and then to fly. Thus,
by itself, the fact that "many small animals are capable of climbing trees" is totally
consistent with the arboreal hypothesis!
More context is given in the full sentence from the passage: "Many small animals, and even some goats and kangaroos, are capable of climbing trees but are not gliders." The last bit of the sentence -- that animals that are capable of climbing trees
are not necessarily gliders -- is the part that really undermines potential evidence for the arboreal hypothesis. If certain animals can climb but cannot glide, then any arboreal adaptations in Archaeopteryx cannot be used as evidence that it began gliding down from trees.
Because (C) does not include the key information that potentially undermines the arboreal hypothesis, it is not the correct answer.
Quote:
(D) Plants in Archaeopteryx’s known habitats were relatively small
Again, the arboreal hypothesis "holds that bird ancestors began to fly
by climbing trees and gliding down from branches with the help of incipient feathers:
the height of trees provides a good starting place for launching flight, especially through gliding."
This hypothesis relies on the
height of trees to provide a good starting place for launching flight. Sure, we don't know exactly how tall the trees need to be, but the fact that "there were no plants taller than a few meters in the environments where Archaeopteryx fossils have been found" certainly
undermines the arboreal hypothesis.
(D) is the best choice.
I hope that helps!