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 1: Text Structure

Explanation

Answer: A

PASSAGE

In the past, people wrote letters to communicate over long distances. Today, they use email and instant messaging. These modern methods are much faster but feel less personal.

Which choice best describes the function of the third sentence?

A. It compares the two methods of communication mentioned earlier.✓ Correct

B. It provides a definition of a letter.

C. It explains how the internet works.

D. It argues that we should ban email.

Detailed Answer Explanation

This question tests your understanding of how the text is organized. Sentence 3 evaluates ('much faster but feel less personal') the two things mentioned before (letters vs email). Authors structure their writing purposefully to guide readers through their ideas. Identify the organizational pattern (cause-effect, compare-contrast, problem-solution) and how each part contributes to the whole. Authors choose organizational patterns deliberately to enhance their message. Recognizing whether a text uses chronological order, cause-effect, compare-contrast, or problem-solution helps you understand the author's purpose and follow the logic.

Key Evidence:

• "modern methods are much faster"

• "less personal"

Why others are wrong: B (No definition provided.), C (No technical explanation.), D (It mentions downsides but doesn't argue for a ban.).

← Previous Next →