How should I approach this reading question type?

First, identify the core claim of the text. Look for transition words like 'however' or 'furthermore' which signal changes in the author's logic. Then, match the evidence directly to the options provided.

What is the common trap in wrong answers for this category?

The most common trap is 'extreme language' (e.g., 'always', 'never') or 'unsupported inferences' that go beyond what is explicitly stated in the provided text snippet.

Why is the correct answer better than the close alternatives?

The correct answer usually captures the most direct and necessary evidence from the text, whereas alternatives often focus on minor details or distort the author's primary subject.

Set 2: Cross-Text Connections (Intermediate)

Explanation

Answer: C

PASSAGE

Text 1 The Code of Hammurabi is one of the oldest legal codes. It is famous for the principle of 'an eye for an eye,' ensuring that punishments were proportional to the crime. Text 2 While seemingly fair, the Code contained distinct biases. Punishments varied heavily based on the social class of the victim and the perpetrator, with harsher penalties for harming the wealthy.

How does Text 2 modify the description of justice presented in Text 1?

A. It argues that the Code was completely random.

B. It states that punishments were too lenient.

C. It clarifies that the 'proportionality' was relative to social status, not absolute equality.✓ Correct

D. It claims the Code never existed.

Detailed Answer Explanation

This question asks you to compare perspectives from two passages. Text 1: Proportional (Eye for eye). Text 2: Biased/Varied by class. Modification: Proportional relative to status. Understanding how the authors relate to each other's views is essential. Identify whether they agree, disagree, or address different aspects of the topic. Focus on their specific claims and conclusions. When comparing texts, first identify each author's thesis or main argument. Then determine how these positions interact: do they complement each other, contradict each other, or address different aspects of the same issue? The relationship between texts reveals deeper meaning.

Key Evidence:

• "proportional to the crime"

• "varied heavily"

• "social class"

Why others are wrong: A (Structured bias.), B (Harsher for some.), D (Discusses it.).

← Previous Next →