#12 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Organization

[alee]

Hi,

Do you have a strategy suggestion for 'organization of the passage' questions such as the Q12, Section 2 PT29? They are generally very length and time consuming to work through.

At the moment I kind of approach it in a similar way to that advised for 'parallel argument' questions in the ALG course. That is, I try to match element by element.

Hence, in the question mentioned above, I eliminated A and B because no 'alternative solution' is mentioned. (could liken this to 'matching the conclusion')

Similarly, D is out because the solution isn't actually applied to other problems.

Finally E is rejected using the same method b/c it is clearly false that the proposal is rejected.

Would you agree with the above analysis, and more importantly the method? I only really read in detail the last little bits of each answer options, and it did save time. What do you guys reckon?

Cheers! Thanks for all the help. You guys are fantastic, recommended you to many of my friends.

[Steve Stein]

Hey Alee,

First, always good to hear that the forum's been helpful--as for this question, I think your approach was pretty solid. What I find is that for global organization questions such as this one, it is often easier to rule out the losers than to zero right in on the right answer choice--it looks like that's just what you did.

Sometimes these things are just a bit time consuming, so my only other recommendation would be to skip the ones that look as though they will require more time and effort, and come back after you've availed yourself of the easier questions that appear later in the section.

I hope that's helpful! Nice work!

~Steve

[snowy]

Building off of the posts above, would it also be correct to say there are not solutions, plural, in the passage, and therefore to rule out B? That's the reason I ruled it out, rather than the reason Alee stated - I actually thought there kind of was an alternative method proposed, in the very last sentence where it is conceded that languages could be preserved in oral form (rather than written, which is the solution that the passage had been discussing until then), albeit while eschewing majority culture.

So I suppose I have two questions to confirm my reading of the passage: there was only one solution introduced, right? And is it okay to read the concession in the last sentence as a potential alternative solution to the issue of traditional languages disappearing?

Thanks so much!! As Alee said, this forum remains SUPER helpful 7 years later!

[Zach Foreman]

Snowy,
I agree with you. There is only one solution in the beginning.
I don't think the last sentence counts as an alternate solution because it pretty much continues the status quo of oral transmission.I suppose you could say the real alternate solution is "to eschew aspects of the majority culture that make [language] preservation difficult." But that is pretty vague and more an add on than part of the main argument.