how likely is it that we'll get passages like these where so many questions can be answered after reading just one passage?! its crazy how many questions could be answered just on passage A in this first pass of the "split strategy" in the lesson
Right?! Before the video was even over, I already was skimming through the answers as JY talked and saw that all but one seemed really out there and inaccurate compared to what we just read. I asked myself "Did I really just narrow it down to one?" Sure enough: yes!
@mason4nc He will introduce this method to a passage that is very compatible with it to demonstrate it. Not all passages are this easy. Still great though, but I wish all comparative passages were this easy lol
I mean the whole point of passage A is that historians shouldn't even BE persuasive...they should be neutral. So AC E saying contrasting different kids of 'persuasive writing' eliminates it pretty quickly to me
#feedback, I really like the combo of Kevin's explanations + typed outline that is used in this video format. It's much easier to read and follow. Thanks! :-)
It's so interesting that you can select the right answer by choosing the one that best applies to one of the two passages when the questions asks about both. It's definitely a practice in self-confidence - choose what you feel is best, and, for time's sake, stick with it and move on!
I think it's more about the fact that, so far, D was the only answer that matched Passage 1. Since the question asks for an answer that's correct for both passages, and D is the only option that fits Passage 1, it's the most likely candidate going into Passage 2 because we don't have any other viable option from Passage 1. If we had two strong contenders after reading Passage 1, then we'd need to wait until reading Passage 2 to eliminate one of them
Dude I kept (A), (D), and (E) after reading Passage A—my sense is most people attracted to the split method by this point are finding they could've been a little more aggressive after Passage A lol.
The word "tend" is what throws me off for D. The author doesn't mention that historians tend to be advocates/propagandists. Is the solution to ignore that and select D because its simply a better fit as an answer? Or is there an implied "tendency" here that im missing?
@mvivot I think a big part of what makes this answer right is the word "may". If a historian may tend to do something, that doesn't really imply much other than its in the realm of possibilities that a historian might do it. Which I think is very fair to assume
I was thrown off by answer choice A because in paragraph 2 the relativist historians do make a claim, and I interpreted objective vs relativist historians as rival approaches to historical scholarships, but as of writing I can see why my previous statement is an assumption, but it doesn't seem like a crazy assumption? I don't see why using propogandist couldn't be refuting the real claim made by the relativist historians. #help
@RobertWay The revisionist historians made a claim but the sentence that uses the word "propagandist" is not refuting that claim. The sentence is simply saying how objective historians should be/see themselves.
If it were refuting the claim it would have to somehow say that ascribing different meanings to past events does not mean that the events themselves lack absolute meanings. The sentence with the word "propagandist" does nothing to this end.
Simply put, the sentence is not a response to the claim.
I would have skipped this question because I would have a lower confidence overall for the AC I would lean towards. I still need an alternative explanation for D #help
The lesson on split approach mentioned transforming the question stems, and that's what I've been doing.
As such, I just transformed the question from what it was to
"Passage A mentions propaganda primarily in order to"
and D fits.
My idea is that if the question asked for the primary reason BOTH passages mentioned X, it must also be the case that it's the primary reason why ONE passage mentioned X.
E is not wrong (in my opinion) because the passage does draw contrast between other kinds of persuasive writing (advocate contrasted with propagandist) they are both ways of persuading.
@AndrewWiedenkeller The passage arguably does draw this contrast, but that isn't the point of mentioning the term "propagandist". The question asks about the purpose, not just about what the passage does.
I was between A and D here. I also don't think E was all that attractive as J.Y. claims. The rest of that paragraph has nothing do with other kinds of persuasive writing. I saw the relativist historians as a possible rival group. But what I see wrong with A is that propaganda was not mentioned as a way to refute their claim. That claim was refuted in P2. The author in P3 is mainly concerned with the role of an objective historian. The author then mentions the propogandist as a way of saying: It is possible to end up becoming a propogandist but an objective historian must not be one. It is an extreme that should be avoided. That is why I picked D
I don't see how E is wrong 😭. It seems to me that all social sciences require persuasive writing...? Also, author doesn't say that historians tend to be propagandists. He just rejects propaganda. Thus, I don't see the "may tend" part. #help
I also felt pretty timid about rejecting E at first! My thinking here is that, since JY says to be overly aggressive, we should be absolutely ruthless about the words "persuasive writing" in answer choice E. If Passage A is so concerned with historical objectivity, the author would likely say that writing about the historical truth is not persuasive in any way -- it is just stating facts. When I say the War of 1812 happened, I'm not trying to convince a skeptic that it took place; I'm just asserting the truth. So an objective historian, as Passage A describes, would not describe themselves as writing persuasively, making answer choice E wrong.
As for "tend to be propagandists", this is tricky because the author is saying that objective historians should never be propagandists, while answer choice D says that historians in general tend to be propagandists. Essentially, there's some historians who just blindly repeat political propaganda at the time, and the author says an ideal objective historian should never do that, so they bring up those propagandists as an example of something to not do. This is exactly what the author is doing in the passage, which makes D correct.
@seleneb940 It might be that "tend" isn't referring to "regularly or frequently behaves in a particular way" here. Tend could also mean "go or move in a particular direction" or "be liable to possess or display". Those are definitions from the dictionary, which included the example "The road tends west around small mountains."
31 comments
this split method is literally changing my life bye
same LOL
so far this method is looking amazing.
how likely is it that we'll get passages like these where so many questions can be answered after reading just one passage?! its crazy how many questions could be answered just on passage A in this first pass of the "split strategy" in the lesson
It's actually amazing me how many questions you can answer with just one passage
Right?! Before the video was even over, I already was skimming through the answers as JY talked and saw that all but one seemed really out there and inaccurate compared to what we just read. I asked myself "Did I really just narrow it down to one?" Sure enough: yes!
@mason4nc He will introduce this method to a passage that is very compatible with it to demonstrate it. Not all passages are this easy. Still great though, but I wish all comparative passages were this easy lol
I mean the whole point of passage A is that historians shouldn't even BE persuasive...they should be neutral. So AC E saying contrasting different kids of 'persuasive writing' eliminates it pretty quickly to me
#feedback, I really like the combo of Kevin's explanations + typed outline that is used in this video format. It's much easier to read and follow. Thanks! :-)
same!
I think they mean the pink text
where is the typed outline?
This is J.Y, for some reason he is doing the split method, and Kevin will do the sequential method.
It's so interesting that you can select the right answer by choosing the one that best applies to one of the two passages when the questions asks about both. It's definitely a practice in self-confidence - choose what you feel is best, and, for time's sake, stick with it and move on!
I think it's more about the fact that, so far, D was the only answer that matched Passage 1. Since the question asks for an answer that's correct for both passages, and D is the only option that fits Passage 1, it's the most likely candidate going into Passage 2 because we don't have any other viable option from Passage 1. If we had two strong contenders after reading Passage 1, then we'd need to wait until reading Passage 2 to eliminate one of them
I didn't eliminate A on my first run-through, not sure why now that I am watching this! I'll work on being more aggressive!
Dude I kept (A), (D), and (E) after reading Passage A—my sense is most people attracted to the split method by this point are finding they could've been a little more aggressive after Passage A lol.
The word "tend" is what throws me off for D. The author doesn't mention that historians tend to be advocates/propagandists. Is the solution to ignore that and select D because its simply a better fit as an answer? Or is there an implied "tendency" here that im missing?
@mvivot I think a big part of what makes this answer right is the word "may". If a historian may tend to do something, that doesn't really imply much other than its in the realm of possibilities that a historian might do it. Which I think is very fair to assume
This section is awful... I'm forced to watch the video
i was actually really reluctant to use the split method because i didn't see it as efficient, but I've officially been convinced!!
I was thrown off by answer choice A because in paragraph 2 the relativist historians do make a claim, and I interpreted objective vs relativist historians as rival approaches to historical scholarships, but as of writing I can see why my previous statement is an assumption, but it doesn't seem like a crazy assumption? I don't see why using propogandist couldn't be refuting the real claim made by the relativist historians. #help
@RobertWay The revisionist historians made a claim but the sentence that uses the word "propagandist" is not refuting that claim. The sentence is simply saying how objective historians should be/see themselves.
If it were refuting the claim it would have to somehow say that ascribing different meanings to past events does not mean that the events themselves lack absolute meanings. The sentence with the word "propagandist" does nothing to this end.
Simply put, the sentence is not a response to the claim.
I would have skipped this question because I would have a lower confidence overall for the AC I would lean towards. I still need an alternative explanation for D #help
The lesson on split approach mentioned transforming the question stems, and that's what I've been doing.
As such, I just transformed the question from what it was to
"Passage A mentions propaganda primarily in order to"
and D fits.
My idea is that if the question asked for the primary reason BOTH passages mentioned X, it must also be the case that it's the primary reason why ONE passage mentioned X.
E is not wrong (in my opinion) because the passage does draw contrast between other kinds of persuasive writing (advocate contrasted with propagandist) they are both ways of persuading.
@AndrewWiedenkeller The passage arguably does draw this contrast, but that isn't the point of mentioning the term "propagandist". The question asks about the purpose, not just about what the passage does.
I was between A and D here. I also don't think E was all that attractive as J.Y. claims. The rest of that paragraph has nothing do with other kinds of persuasive writing. I saw the relativist historians as a possible rival group. But what I see wrong with A is that propaganda was not mentioned as a way to refute their claim. That claim was refuted in P2. The author in P3 is mainly concerned with the role of an objective historian. The author then mentions the propogandist as a way of saying: It is possible to end up becoming a propogandist but an objective historian must not be one. It is an extreme that should be avoided. That is why I picked D
I don't see how E is wrong 😭. It seems to me that all social sciences require persuasive writing...? Also, author doesn't say that historians tend to be propagandists. He just rejects propaganda. Thus, I don't see the "may tend" part. #help
thank you in advance for responding!
I also felt pretty timid about rejecting E at first! My thinking here is that, since JY says to be overly aggressive, we should be absolutely ruthless about the words "persuasive writing" in answer choice E. If Passage A is so concerned with historical objectivity, the author would likely say that writing about the historical truth is not persuasive in any way -- it is just stating facts. When I say the War of 1812 happened, I'm not trying to convince a skeptic that it took place; I'm just asserting the truth. So an objective historian, as Passage A describes, would not describe themselves as writing persuasively, making answer choice E wrong.
As for "tend to be propagandists", this is tricky because the author is saying that objective historians should never be propagandists, while answer choice D says that historians in general tend to be propagandists. Essentially, there's some historians who just blindly repeat political propaganda at the time, and the author says an ideal objective historian should never do that, so they bring up those propagandists as an example of something to not do. This is exactly what the author is doing in the passage, which makes D correct.
@seleneb940 It might be that "tend" isn't referring to "regularly or frequently behaves in a particular way" here. Tend could also mean "go or move in a particular direction" or "be liable to possess or display". Those are definitions from the dictionary, which included the example "The road tends west around small mountains."