Passage - General Questions

[Administrator]

Passage Discussion

This passage concerns the issue of disaster relief, and the attendant ineffi ciencies in the current
system. The author closes the passage by reviewing a new approach to disaster relief and possible
considerations for the new approach to succeed.

The six questions are not overly diffi cult, and most students considered this the easiest passage of the
test.

Paragraph 1 Overview

The author begins by explaining that recent disasters have caused a reevaluation of the traditional
manner of handling such disasters. Lines 6-11 mention that many groups are questioning the
traditional method, because they believe it is often ineffective and, in a few cases, destructive. That
is a strong statement of opinion by a certain group on the topic, and you should take note of it
(Whenever a passage discusses a shift in attitudes or methods, you should expect the author to either
evaluate or promote the change, and you should map out the author’s descriptions and arguments).

In lines 11-17, the author reviews the traditional beliefs about disaster relief:

1. Relief is most effective in the immediate aftermath.
2. Large and rapid infusions of aid are most effective—more is better.

As this section discusses a long-standing view, you should prepare for questions on these beliefs, and
you should also expect that later in the passage that newer, different views will be presented.

The author does not give his opinion in this paragraph, so you will need to keep looking for it. Do
not confuse the citation of the traditional view or the new view for the author’s opinion.

Paragraph 2 Overview

The author proceeds to list some of the reasons that critics have cited as weaknesses of the traditional
approach to disaster relief:

1. The infl ux of untargeted goods and personnel can overload local infrastructures.
2. Sometimes goods disappear into the market for resale, and billions in aid goes
unaccounted for.

The fi rst point is fairly straightforward. The second point is that aid that should have been free for the
victims of a disaster is “stolen” amidst the confusion, and sold on the open market.

Paragraph 3 Overview

The author moves to a discussion of how the “experts” would develop a more effective approach to
disaster relief. You should note that the author clearly refers to the experts’ assertions as “claims,”
(line 34) and that implies that the author may not fully agree. Do not assume the author agrees
simply because he or she refers to “experts.”

The experts recommend focusing on long-term solutions that are self-generated by the community in
question long before the onset of disaster. Note that the expert recommendation is in direct contrast
to the traditional approach, which focuses on the immediate aftermath of a disaster. The experts
believe that disaster-prone communities need to internally develop disaster preparedness, so that
when disaster strikes, those communities can then effectively lead the recovery efforts. The author
states that such a plan will allow a response targeted on the desires of the community, rather than an
immediate but unfocused response.

Paragraph 4 Overview

The author fi nally supplies an evaluation, and you should note the presence of this new viewpoint.
The author believes that the long-term approach proposal seems sound, but that it is somewhat
dependent on how donors will respond. Historically, donors respond in the immediate aftermath
of a disaster, and not at other times. Since a long-term response is actually necessary, the author
concludes in lines 54-59 that donors that take the communities’ desires into account could tailor
better immediate responses and offer long-term aid. The author’s evaluation of the situation can be
taken as the main point of the passage.

Passage Summary

The strong statement of main point in lines 54-59 suggests, given the rest of the passage, that the
author believes that recent events show that communities need to have internally developed goals
for disaster response, and that donors could be more effective, both long-term and short-term, if they
would enter into a dialogue with prepared communities.

The structure of the passage is as follows:

Paragraph 1: Introduce a situation, an old approach, and a potential change
Paragraph 2: Report critiques of the old approach
Paragraph 3: Describe a suggested new approach
Paragraph 4: Evaluate what is needed to implement the new approach

The author’s attitude is impartial, but positive toward a new approach.

This passage is not overly diffi cult to understand, and simply noting the critiques of the old methods
and the author’s evaluation of the newer suggestions should be suffi cient to effi ciently respond to
most of the questions.