Ok
Usually, I DO NOT explain the entire passage but only the answer choices of a question: which is right and which is wrong
So guys, hang on and follow me in this explanation.
But before to jump into the business, let me give you some information.
1) To me the best strategy is to read the passage first. oF COURSE, IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR LEVEL OF English Language - remember: these official passages are at an academic level, therefore, do not pretend they are the flyer to read of some grocery store. These are serious stuff
2) When I read the passage I do not take notes. I just read for something NOT just a sequence of facts facts and that's it. I do not read to something. I read
FOR something. I at most re-read a sentence to stick out which is its role or it has something very important.
3) Now: this is a passage from the Big Book which has 7 questions. The actual RC are the same but a bit shortest and with at most 4 questions. But in terms of consistency, they are the same. Therefore, the passages from the BB are amazing for your exam
Making the count: you should take from 4 to seven minutes to read a long passage and 1 minute per question. Even though this is the average in terms of timing, I stay conservative: I try to stick to the minor timing i.e 4 minutes. Plus 1 minute for the questions. This passage has 7 questions. As such, I should take 11/12 minutes to finish. If it was an actual RC passage the timing should be 8 minutes.
I did it in 3.50 minutes with my phone timer. How this is possible..............ok I will show you with this tough Rc (not the super crazy though in terms of difficulty) but really super tough
Remember: I read the passage ONCE and for all and then I go straight to the questions, one by one. No hesitation
Please also, see my guide about time management
https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/gre-time- ... tml#p57079I will update the rest in ONE hour from now Going to explain the passage in its essence, step by step
Quote:
A "scientistic" view of language was dominant among philosophers and linguists who affected to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century.
In brief, among the scholars, the view that went the most was a scientific approach when they did analyze the human behaviour and mind, our thoughts.
Quote:
Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort the truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned.
Now, the key or central focus here is the rhetoric (do not bother you what is the rhetoric: if you do know is better, if not..whatever. Just think is something to keep in mind: the rhetoric, that's it).
Analyzing the rhetoric, the scientist we mention in the first sentence had a scientific approach. Therefore, the result, following this, is that the rhetoric itself went from a phenomenon that was questionable i.e. the implication was that the rhetoric had some doubt. An important point is what we do have inside the brackets: on one hand, the rhetoric calls people to action so it is NOT that bad but on the other hand, the rhetoric distorts the truth. hence, it could be a razor edge with pros and cons.
To recap: a scientific approach shifted the rhetoric from a point on the edge: maybe it is good, maybe it is bad to a level definitely bad: wholly condemned.
Quote:
If people are regarded only as machines guided by logic, as they were by these "scientistic" thinkers, rhetoric is likely to be held in low regard; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person.
This is a sentence a bit difficult to grasp: IF we apply to the rhetoric ONLY the logic or the scientific approach we lose the grasp. i.e. we only see part of the story or we DO NOT understand fully the thoughts of a person. We would need to see more than that
Quote:
It presents its arguments first to the person as a rational being, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning.
Here is crucial to understand the pronoun IT at the beginning of the sentence refers to. It is not so clear but is the scientific approach. The sentence says: a person is a rational entity. That's the meaning
Quote:
Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respectfully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a characterizing feature of rhetoric that it goes beyond this and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering.
In persuading people the logical argument is the basement. However, it also pertains to the rhetoric BUT as it turns out it goes beyond simple logic and encompasses also the nature of a person
Notice: this is an inference part. It is important but you should understand it but pass through fast.
Quote:
It recalls relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional-that are similar to our own circumstances. Such is the purpose of both historical accounts and fables in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.
The rhetoric is important because shows us the other nature side of a person: that related to his/her feeling and the situations he/she lives. A speech that tries to address something ONLY from the logical standing point will end up failing. Miserably
Quote:
Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space.
This second paragraph goes down deeper of what is rhetoric. We are not logic machines but human beings. Pretty simple
Quote:
The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. It takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out.If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness.
The study of rhetoric is essential because
considered the most humanistic of the humanities. It comprehends NOT only the logic and scientific side but also the human side: specifically rhetoric takes into account our weakness
Quote:
But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naive; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.
This part is very important
Those who disregard the rhetoric just as something that deals with lies BUT at the same time want to mobilize people which is a typical feature that rhetoric has and conversely the scientific approach does not.....is a LIAR him or herself
Logic thinking is arid, a desert because it does not comprehend the emotions of a person, the feeling
The portion above is very important. In a nutshell, tell us our mind, our logic is pivotal but ALSO our heart.