To ace the reading comprehension section you need to be a critical reader. Easier said than done.
Test aspirants usually skim(passively glance at a passage picking up few points here and there)through a passage. Then they take a look at the question. All the options seems correct. You are back to square 1.
Critical reading involves 3 levels of understanding and evaluation
First:Grasp the overall idea or the main point of the passage along with the general organization
Second:subject the specific details to greater scrutiny and explain what something means and why it was introduced.
Third: Evaluate what the author has written, what further conclusions can be drawn and judge whether the argument is good or bad.
Let me take you through one passage and lets critically read that passage.
First go through the passage:
According to Shaw mere diversity and disagreement on what is considered morally right is not enough reason to claim that there is no objective truth, nor a standard by which we can try to arrive at it and so there is no reason to worry about the claims of the relativist. I do not fully agree with Shaw’s disputation against the diversity argument for meta-ethical relativism although I do agree that the diversity argument does not entirely rule out the possibility of objective morality. I simply do not feel that this is the argument’s whole intention in the first place. Rather it is claiming that we as a global nation will never grasp this objective truth which does raise the question of whether there can be such a thing, and with this I do agree.
It is reasonable to see how moral truth can be considered different for different groups. Shaw outlines different theories which intend to weaken the relativist’s argument, including those of Naturalism, Intuitionism, and Emotivism, which I might add, are all themselves flawed in some way, but no real conclusion is reached as to how perfectly they prove to fault relativism. But then I ask why a rational person would spend any time defending or relying on something that he cannot fully understand, based on the fact that relativism cannot completely rule out the possibility of objectivity. Moral Relativism states that there are no objective truths or morals, but that these are conditional and dependent on a number of factors. It has two main claims: a) ‘there are no universally valid standards’ and b) ‘the validity of moral standards is dependent on cultural acceptance (Conventionalism) or personal choice or commitment (Subjectivism).’ Shaw is trying to undermine the meta-ethical diversity theory on the basis that just because we cannot see it does not mean that it’s not there. When we discuss diversity in ethics we do not only look at diversity at this present time, but also look back to the past and debate about how we should go about deciphering a new, universal moral system.
Now lets read critically
(According to Shaw mere diversity and disagreement on what is considered morally right is not enough reason to claim that there is no objective truth, nor a standard by which we can try to arrive at it and so there is no reason to worry about the claims of the relativist.) <---- shaws claim ( I do not fully)<-----author doesn’t agree agree with Shaw’s disputation against the diversity argument for meta-ethical relativism although( I do agree)<-----author agrees that the diversity argument does not entirely rule out the possibility of objective morality. I simply do not feel that this (is the argument’s)<-----attacking shaws argument whole intention in the first place. Rather it is claiming that we as a global nation will never grasp this objective truth which does raise the question of whether there can be such a thing, and with this I do agree. )<-----author doesn’t agree with whose claim: relativist’s or shaw’s
It is reasonable to see how moral truth can be considered different for different groups. Shaw outlines different theories which intend to weaken the relativist’s argument, including those of Naturalism, Intuitionism, and Emotivism,<-----why does the author introduce these things which I might add, are all themselves flawed in some way, but no real conclusion is reached as to how perfectly they prove to fault relativism. But then I ask why a rational person would spend any time defending or relying on something that he cannot fully understand, based on the fact that relativism cannot completely rule out the possibility of objectivity. <-----explains shaws argument Moral Relativism states that there are no objective truths or morals<----- relativists claim, but that these are conditional and dependent on a number of factors. It has two main claims: a) ‘there are no universally valid standards’ and b) ‘the validity of moral standards is dependent on cultural acceptance (Conventionalism) or personal choice or commitment (Subjectivism).’ Shaw is trying to undermine<-----explains shaws flaw the meta-ethical diversity theory on the basis that just because we cannot see it does not mean that it’s not there. When we discuss diversity in ethics we do not only look at diversity at this present time, but also look back to the past and debate about how we should go about deciphering a new, universal moral system. <-----attacks shaws claim with counter argument
----------------------------
My comments are marked in red.
Did you notice :There are 3 perspectives being put forth in the passage: relativists, shaw and author. Did you understand how the passage was constructed? What is the claim? What is the argument?What is the counter argument which is presented and so on...... This is a sneak peak into critical reading. To ace the exam read every passage critically and trust me if you don’t have it in you. You can be taught to read critically in under 15hrs.
Test aspirants usually skim(passively glance at a passage picking up few points here and there)through a passage. Then they take a look at the question. All the options seems correct. You are back to square 1.
Critical reading involves 3 levels of understanding and evaluation
First:Grasp the overall idea or the main point of the passage along with the general organization
Second:subject the specific details to greater scrutiny and explain what something means and why it was introduced.
Third: Evaluate what the author has written, what further conclusions can be drawn and judge whether the argument is good or bad.
Let me take you through one passage and lets critically read that passage.
First go through the passage:
According to Shaw mere diversity and disagreement on what is considered morally right is not enough reason to claim that there is no objective truth, nor a standard by which we can try to arrive at it and so there is no reason to worry about the claims of the relativist. I do not fully agree with Shaw’s disputation against the diversity argument for meta-ethical relativism although I do agree that the diversity argument does not entirely rule out the possibility of objective morality. I simply do not feel that this is the argument’s whole intention in the first place. Rather it is claiming that we as a global nation will never grasp this objective truth which does raise the question of whether there can be such a thing, and with this I do agree.
It is reasonable to see how moral truth can be considered different for different groups. Shaw outlines different theories which intend to weaken the relativist’s argument, including those of Naturalism, Intuitionism, and Emotivism, which I might add, are all themselves flawed in some way, but no real conclusion is reached as to how perfectly they prove to fault relativism. But then I ask why a rational person would spend any time defending or relying on something that he cannot fully understand, based on the fact that relativism cannot completely rule out the possibility of objectivity. Moral Relativism states that there are no objective truths or morals, but that these are conditional and dependent on a number of factors. It has two main claims: a) ‘there are no universally valid standards’ and b) ‘the validity of moral standards is dependent on cultural acceptance (Conventionalism) or personal choice or commitment (Subjectivism).’ Shaw is trying to undermine the meta-ethical diversity theory on the basis that just because we cannot see it does not mean that it’s not there. When we discuss diversity in ethics we do not only look at diversity at this present time, but also look back to the past and debate about how we should go about deciphering a new, universal moral system.
Now lets read critically
(According to Shaw mere diversity and disagreement on what is considered morally right is not enough reason to claim that there is no objective truth, nor a standard by which we can try to arrive at it and so there is no reason to worry about the claims of the relativist.) <---- shaws claim ( I do not fully)<-----author doesn’t agree agree with Shaw’s disputation against the diversity argument for meta-ethical relativism although( I do agree)<-----author agrees that the diversity argument does not entirely rule out the possibility of objective morality. I simply do not feel that this (is the argument’s)<-----attacking shaws argument whole intention in the first place. Rather it is claiming that we as a global nation will never grasp this objective truth which does raise the question of whether there can be such a thing, and with this I do agree. )<-----author doesn’t agree with whose claim: relativist’s or shaw’s
It is reasonable to see how moral truth can be considered different for different groups. Shaw outlines different theories which intend to weaken the relativist’s argument, including those of Naturalism, Intuitionism, and Emotivism,<-----why does the author introduce these things which I might add, are all themselves flawed in some way, but no real conclusion is reached as to how perfectly they prove to fault relativism. But then I ask why a rational person would spend any time defending or relying on something that he cannot fully understand, based on the fact that relativism cannot completely rule out the possibility of objectivity. <-----explains shaws argument Moral Relativism states that there are no objective truths or morals<----- relativists claim, but that these are conditional and dependent on a number of factors. It has two main claims: a) ‘there are no universally valid standards’ and b) ‘the validity of moral standards is dependent on cultural acceptance (Conventionalism) or personal choice or commitment (Subjectivism).’ Shaw is trying to undermine<-----explains shaws flaw the meta-ethical diversity theory on the basis that just because we cannot see it does not mean that it’s not there. When we discuss diversity in ethics we do not only look at diversity at this present time, but also look back to the past and debate about how we should go about deciphering a new, universal moral system. <-----attacks shaws claim with counter argument
----------------------------
My comments are marked in red.
Did you notice :There are 3 perspectives being put forth in the passage: relativists, shaw and author. Did you understand how the passage was constructed? What is the claim? What is the argument?What is the counter argument which is presented and so on...... This is a sneak peak into critical reading. To ace the exam read every passage critically and trust me if you don’t have it in you. You can be taught to read critically in under 15hrs.
No comments:
Post a Comment