Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Reading Comprehension
An e-GMAT Live Session
The Company
RC
Strategies
The People
12 minutes
100 minutes
20 minutes
Most # of debriefs
Real Reviews
Real People = True Reviews
99+ percentile on
many exams
including
GMAT
Best Expert on GC
Past HT editor
1. Learning
760, ISB
Authored Vocabulary
Advantage, Pearson
750 in 1 Week
IESE Spain, GSB
Chicago
2. Teaching Excellence
3. Customer Success
1 MM Best Presenter
Competition
Princeton
GMAT Pill
e-GMAT
2.
3.
4.
9
7
18
23
High Ratings
55
1. Learning
2. Teaching
Excellence
3. Customer
Success
0
20
40
60
Published more articles on GMATClubs Verbal forum than every other test prep company
combined.
Member of the month for 2012.
Every one Full Time on e-GMAT
2 Kinds of courses
Verbal Online
Things to note
5
-
YES
The Company
SC
Strategies
The People
12 minutes
100 minutes
20 minutes
Passage 1
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the
object of regulation were automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and implications for applying
identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any
decent person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually,
educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of
cars to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police, and those special individuals whom the military
or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have insisted on using over the past three decades in
promoting any kind of control proposalno matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For these
advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as
inherently wrong, they do not believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason, do they think that the
interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van
Horne, Rep. Fortney Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve respect or consideration, on the
ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy
or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic
Research Institute. From that literature a study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas "demented
and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners
is tantamount to bigotryfor it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that inform it the only policy basis for gun controls
generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that
gun control is synonymous with "disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really what all
proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a
gun is morally wrong.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation were
automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,
automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent
person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be
atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing
and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars
to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,
and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For
these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do not
believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled
to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney
Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve
respect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,
they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National
Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a
study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent
creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryfor
it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that
inform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the
most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby
effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with
"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if
their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation were
automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,
automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent
person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be
atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing
and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars
to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,
and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For
these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do not
believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled
to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney
Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve
respect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,
they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National
Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a
study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent
creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryfor
it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that
inform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the
most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby
effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with
"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if
their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
The author wants to criticize the argument proposed by guncontrol advocates on the basis that they are overly harsh in
their estimate of the motivations of gun-owners.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation were
automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,
automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent
person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be
atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing
and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars
to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,
and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For
these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do not
believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled
to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney
Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve
respect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,
they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National
Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a
study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent
creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryfor
it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that
inform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the
most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby
effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with
"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if
their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
40 YEARS BACK
1. Closed environment
2. Few new concepts
3. With correct approach
=> Minimal errors
Read and
COMPREHEND the
passage well enough
to create passage
summary
Pre-Think the
answer
Eliminate answer
choices
This process improves accuracy and saves time since it minimizes the need to re-read the passage.
Get
Immersed
in the
passage
Summarize
& predict
whats next
Predict the
thoughts
through
keywords
Shorten
the
technical
terms &
names
Identify &
quickly go
through the
Details
Understand
Sentence
Structure
Infer
Meaning of
Difficult
Words
3. Desire
1. Belief
In the methods that will
lead to success
2. Behavior
Work to improve your skills
in applying the methods
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the
object of regulation were automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and implications for applying
identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any
decent person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually,
educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of
cars to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police, and those special individuals whom the military
or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have insisted on using over the past three decades in
promoting any kind of control proposalno matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For these
advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as
inherently wrong, they do not believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason, do they think that the
interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van
Horne, Rep. Fortney Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve respect or consideration, on the
ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy
or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic
Research Institute. From that literature a study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas "demented
and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners
is tantamount to bigotryfor it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that inform it the only policy basis for gun controls
generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that
gun control is synonymous with "disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really what all
proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a
gun is morally wrong.
- gun owners
- gun owners
Nor are
Same Direction (previous sentence not premised)
Explains that purpose of car controls is different
from the purpose of gun controls.
- gun owners
- gun owners
of freedom of choice.
Detail Information
Purpose Irrespective of the way in which GCA
phrase their argument, the crux of it remains the
same.
Infer the meaning from the CONTEXT
GCA think that guns are bad.
So when they compare owning a gun with driving
a car in certain condition that condition is
certainly not a responsible condition.
Because Some cause and effect presented
GCA consider gun ownership WRONG ->
Banning guns does not hamper freedom.
Detail Information
Names of people who are GCA.
Infer the meaning from the CONTEXT - Per them,
owning guns is bad.
Gun owners do not actually make a choice for
owning or not owning guns.
It happens automatically because of the stated
reasons (sexual inadequacy and perversion)
basis in fact.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially indistinguishable from those
they would readily support if the object of regulation were automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks
crucial differences in the rationale and implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to
cars. Above all, automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent person
would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be atavistic and warped sexually,
intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing and car registration proposed or implemented
as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars
to all but the military, police, and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have insisted on using over
the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno matter how moderate and defensible it
might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to
owning a car but to driving it while inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently
wrong, they do not believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled to any
consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and
Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve respect or consideration, on the ground that gun
ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of
sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National Institute of Justice by
the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a study derived the following description of
the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas "demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun
is to rain death on innocent creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to
bigotryfor it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that inform it the only
policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the most important feature of the public
debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so many gun control advocates that plays into the hands
of their opponents. The gun lobby effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is
synonymous with "disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if their agenda is
entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation were
automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,
automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent
person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be
atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing
and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars
to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,
and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For
these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do not
believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled
to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney
Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve
respect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,
they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National
Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a
study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent
creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryfor
it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that
inform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the
most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby
effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with
"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if
their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
Detail Question
Global detail since the views of GCA have been presented at multiple places. Use POE to find the answer.
Out of Context
Passage does not say anything about getting rid of
sexual inadequacy.
Out of Scope
The author has not touched on the gun-owners
motivation to adjust better in the society.
iSWAT
Uses similar terms
But in different context
CORRECT
Reword of following statement in Para 2 last sentence
... gun ownership cannot involve real choice because, they argue,
it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual
inadequacy or perversion
iSWAT
Per the GCA gun ownership is display (manifestation)
of sexual inadequacy. This choice reverses the stated
relationship
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation were
automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,
automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent
person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be
atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing
and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars
to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,
and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For
these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do not
believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled
to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney
Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve
respect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,
they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National
Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a
study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent
creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryfor
it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that
inform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the
most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby
effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with
"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if
their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
The author wants to criticize the argument proposed by guncontrol advocates on the basis that they are overly harsh in
their estimate of the motivations of gun-owners.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not justified
and how such argument is being used against GCA
Out of Scope
Passage is not written in advisory/warning form.
It is not addressed to GCA.
Does not talk about any such consequence.
iSWAT
Does not capture the complete essence.
Uses similar terms used in the passage.
The purpose of these terms in the passage is different
from what is stated here.
CORRECT
Captures essence of passage as pre-thought
1st part Para 1, 2, 3
2nd part Para 4
Out of Scope
Does not contain progressive thinking.
Passage does not say that such infringement happens.
The author wants to criticize the argument proposed by guncontrol advocates on the basis that they are overly harsh in
their estimate of the motivations of gun-owners.
Partial Scope
Only captures partial essence as indicated in para 1,
2,3.
It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically oppose controls that are essentially
indistinguishable from those they would readily support if the object of regulation were
automobiles and not guns. Yet this irony overlooks crucial differences in the rationale and
implications for applying identical control mechanisms to firearms and to cars. Above all,
automobile regulation is not premised on the idea that cars are evils from which any decent
person would recoil in horrorthat anyone wanting to possess such an awful thing must be
atavistic and warped sexually, intellectually, educationally, and ethically. Nor are driver licensing
and car registration proposed or implemented as ways to reduce radically the availability of cars
to ordinary citizens or to secure the ultimate goal of denying cars to all but the military, police,
and those special individuals whom the military or police select to receive permits.
But those are the terms many prominent and highly articulate "gun control" advocates have
insisted on using over the past three decades in promoting any kind of control proposalno
matter how moderate and defensible it might be when presented in less pejorative terms. For
these advocates, just owning a gun is analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. Because these advocates regard gun ownership as inherently wrong, they do not
believe that banning guns implicates any issue of freedom of choice. Nor, for the same reason,
do they think that the interests and desires of those who own, or want to own, guns are entitled
to any consideration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Harriet Van Horne, Rep. Fortney
Stark, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Harlan Ellison, deny that the interests of gun owners deserve
respect or consideration, on the ground that gun ownership cannot involve real choice because,
they argue, it is actually only a preconditioned manifestation of sexual inadequacy or perversion.
In fact, a definitive analysis of American gun control literature was conducted for the National
Institute of Justice by the Social and Demographic Research Institute. From that literature a
study derived the following description of the way anti-gun advocates see gun ownersas
"demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent
creatures, both human and otherwise." Such a view of gun owners is tantamount to bigotryfor
it has no empirical basis in fact.
Of course, disarmament is not the only possible control scheme. Nor are the anti-gun views that
inform it the only policy basis for gun controls generally. But the anti-gun rhetoric remains the
most important feature of the public debate over gun control. For it is the anti-gun rhetoric of so
many gun control advocates that plays into the hands of their opponents. The gun lobby
effectively uses that rhetoric to convince gun owners that gun control is synonymous with
"disarmament," because the rhetoric of gun control advocates makes it appear as if this is really
what all proponents of gun control have in mind when they propose any regulation and as if
their agenda is entirely inspired by the conviction that owning a gun is morally wrong.
Global Inference
Question to be solved by POE since we have to find the statement that CANNOT be inferred from the passage.
Can be Inferred
Para 3 - demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose
concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both
human and otherwise.
CORRECT
Per Para 2 For these advocates, just owning a gun is
analogous not to owning a car but to driving it while
inebriated. OWNING a GUN is compared to driving rashly
not USING a GUN.
Can be Inferred
Para 4 Of course, disarmament is not the only possible
control scheme.
Can be Inferred
Para 1 It is a truism to say that gun owners hysterically
oppose controls...
Can be Inferred
Para 2 Because these advocates regard gun ownership as
inherently wrong, they do not believe that banning guns
implicates any issue of freedom of choice.
Read and
COMPREHEND the
passage well enough
to create passage
summary
Pre-Think the
answer
Eliminate answer
choices
This process improves accuracy and saves time since it minimizes the need to re-read the passage.
Get
Immersed
in the
passage
Summarize
& predict
whats next
Predict the
thoughts
through
keywords
Shorten
the
technical
terms &
names
Identify &
quickly go
through the
Details
Understand
Sentence
Structure
Infer
Meaning of
Difficult
Words
3. Desire
1. Belief
In the methods that will
lead to success
2. Behavior
Work to improve your skills
in applying the methods
Next Steps
1. Solve this passage again applying the reading strategies
2. Take the e-GMAT free trial (Main Point)
3. Solve 10 Questions from OG (2 passages), applying the reading
strategies
Make sure that you are absolutely clear while selecting
the right answer and rejecting the wrong ones
4. Solve the passage in PDF, applying the reading strategies
5. Review the reading strategies again
6. Do exercise questions
Not only improved performance but also be able to point out mistakes
clearly.
Passage 2
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which
internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity, loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or
the incorporation of evil. Although the term may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cumsentiment structure involving aversion/dislike and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or
alien represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin,
but a few voices have cautioned that this need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he
reminds us, usually involves some claim of common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it
would be foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may be
greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessary concomitant of out-group hostility.
While both can be enhanced by competition and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by
ethnic break-down and further hostility and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to
outside groups, and even when the threat arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level of violence within as well as
between ethnic groups.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism
syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with
xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike
and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien
represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that this
need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other
groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude of
hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may
be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition
and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be
successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostility
and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat
arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the
overall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism
syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with
xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike
and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien
represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that this
need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other
groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude of
hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may
be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition
and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be
successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostility
and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat
arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the
overall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism
syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with
xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike
and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien
represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that this
need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other
groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude of
hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may
be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition
and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be
successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostility
and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat
arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the
overall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which
internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity, loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or
the incorporation of evil. Although the term may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cumsentiment structure involving aversion/dislike and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or
alien represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin,
but a few voices have cautioned that this need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he
reminds us, usually involves some claim of common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it
would be foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may be
greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessary concomitant of out-group hostility.
While both can be enhanced by competition and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by
ethnic break-down and further hostility and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to
outside groups, and even when the threat arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level of violence within as well as
between ethnic groups.
Ethnocentrism = EC
EC
=
EC has two features
1. Loyalty within group
2. Hostility toward out group
Although Contrast
EC term is new
BUT concept is not new
EC connected with XP
XP = dislike towards strange or alien
But Contrast
Some people think they are not correlated.
Describes new term XP
XP and EC are connected to each other.
Some people think otherwise.
May be next para talks about how they are not connected
Per VDB, EC XP
Defines EC
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with xenophobia, a complex
attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike and antagonism vis--vis the strange or
the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even
considered xenophobia and ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned
that this need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable result of
ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of common ancestry (real or
fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But
reciprocal relationships with members of other groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be
foolish to assume an attitude of hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on
reciprocity may be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Per VDB, EC XP
Common ancestry increases in-group
love
In-group does not mean out-group
hostility. Cooperation can exist with outgroup people if it is beneficial.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a necessary
concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition and external threats, ingroup favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the in-group can successfully counter the
competitive threat. If a group is unable to be successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic
break-down and further hostility and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data
have shown that threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat arises from other
groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia seem to have different causes-with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level of violence within as well as between
ethnic groups.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism
syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with
xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike
and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien
represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that this
need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other
groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude of
hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may
be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition
and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be
successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostility
and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat
arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the
overall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Global Inference
Author explains how GCA argument regarding gun owners is not justified and how such argument is being used against GCA .
iSWAT
Per the passage, it is not necessary that XP and EC may not
always be present together but we cannot conclude that they
are never found together.
In fact, last line of passage presents a situation in which both
EC and XP could be present; their causes may be different
though.
CORRECT
Author mentions this point in last line of the passage
...with the latter being most strongly associated with the overall level
of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
iSWAT
The phrase- feeling of kinship - is mentioned in the third paragraph,
but it has been used to talk about in-group loyalty/favoritism.
Opposite
Passage clearly states While both can be enhanced by
competition and external threats
Opposite
If a group is unable to be successful, hostility to outsiders may be
mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostility and competition
within the group. From the above extract, it is amply clear that
under certain circumstances, the out-group hostility may be
duplicated within the group.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism
syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with
xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike
and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien
represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that this
need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other
groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude of
hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may
be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition
and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be
successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostility
and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat
arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the
overall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Per VDB, EC XP
Detail Question
Specific Detail People may have higher level of adjustment with out-group people than with in-group people. Also, they may expect more
reciprocity from out-group than from in-group people.
Out of Context
Distorts the comparison stated in the passage. Higher
threshold for adjustment means that it takes more/higher
level (of) efforts to adjust (with the out-group).
iSWAT
1st portion of this choice is correct; 2nd is not. Yes, in
the passage both- higher adjustment level and greater
insistence on reciprocity are mentioned but there is no
stated causal relationship between these two elements.
CORRECT
Reword of the stated part of the passage.
iSWAT
Firstly, out-group adjustment may be more difficult than
with in-group people.
Secondly, there is no stated causal relationship between
level of adjustment and reciprocity of gestures.
iSWAT
There is no stated causal relationship between
level/ease of adjustment and reciprocity of gestures.
Bordering on the extreme, one definition of ethnocentrism considers it a schismatic ingroup/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred is
correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war toward out-groups, which are
often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Although the term
may be new, the concept is not. Even Darwin clearly saw the correlation between
intergroup competition and intragroup cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism
syndrome, in human evolution.
Ethnocentrism and its canonical variants are deemed to be intimately connected with
xenophobia, a complex attitude system-cum-sentiment structure involving aversion/dislike
and antagonism vis--vis the strange or the alien, and everything that the stranger or alien
represents. Some sociocultural anthropologists even considered xenophobia and
ethnocentrism opposite sides of the same coin, but a few voices have cautioned that this
need not be the case.
Van den Berghe points out that it would be maladaptive for xenophobia to be an inevitable
result of ethnocentrism. Ethnic affiliation, he reminds us, usually involves some claim of
common ancestry (real or fictive), and a propensity to favor fellow ethnics is no doubt
enhanced by this feeling of kinship. But reciprocal relationships with members of other
groups can frequently be adaptive also, and it would be foolish to assume an attitude of
hostility. The threshold for adjustment may be higher and the insistence on reciprocity may
be greater, but a smart opportunist keeps his options open.
Recent experimental work in psychology also suggests that in-group favoritism is not a
necessary concomitant of out-group hostility. While both can be enhanced by competition
and external threats, in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with the ingroup can successfully counter the competitive threat. If a group is unable to be
successful, hostility to outsiders may be mirrored by ethnic break-down and further hostility
and competition within the group. Finally, analyses of cross-cultural data have shown that
threats such as food shortages that may arise from environmental catastrophes enhances
ethnic loyalty without increasing hostility to outside groups, and even when the threat
arises from other groups (external warfare), the associated ethnocentrism and xenophobia
seem to have different causes-- with the latter being most strongly associated with the
overall level of violence within as well as between ethnic groups.
Specific Inference
The question pertains to results of recent experimental work done in psychology.
i.
ii.
iii.
Incorrect
The passage provides information only for the fact that in-group
favoritism and out-group hostility may not always be correlated. But
it does not give us any information to conclude that in-group
favoritism will only occur in the absence of out-group hostility.
only i
Incorrect
I: Not in the passage
III: Irrelevant section of the passage.
Contents of statement no. III cannot be derived from the experimental
work done in psychology but from the cross-cultural data analyses.
And the question pertains only to the experimental work.
i & iii
Incorrect
Statement II is correct but statement III is not.
ii & iii
only ii
i & ii
CORRECT
Statement II : Ref. (last paragraph):
in-group favoritism should be expected only if affiliation with
the in-group can successfully counter the competitive threat.
The necessary pre-condition is the highlighted portion
above.
Incorrect
Statement II is correct but statement I is not.
Get
Immersed
in the
passage
Summarize
& predict
whats next
Predict the
thoughts
through
keywords
Shorten
the
technical
terms &
names
Identify &
quickly go
through the
Details
Understand
Sentence
Structure
Infer
Meaning of
Difficult
Words
The Company
The People
12 minutes
100 minutes
20 minutes