Derek: We must exploit available resources in developing effective anticancer drugs such as the one made from mature ...
RichmondJune 15, 2018
General Strategy
When a question like this comes up with lines of dialogue from two separate parties, would it be good strategy to just read the lines of the party mentioned (Lola) and skip the other (Derek)? Because you don't really need Derek's input to get the correct answer. I just though it might be way to save time. Any thoughts?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
@Richmond, I wouldn't recommend that strategy. Even in this question, wherein it is only asking for Lola's argument, the correct answer depends on her answering Derek's argument. Derek argues that since they can provide an effective cancer treatment option, the yews should be harvested. The correct answer is that Lola argues that we should not endanger the whole ecosystem just to help a restricted group of people, but she never references a restricted group of people. Only Derek mentions that this would help certain people with a certain type of cancer, so you can't justify that piece of the correct answer without having read Derek's portion. It's possible to make the leap and get the right answer without having read Derek's half, but you're missing key information.
That combined with the fact that most of these question types ask specifically for details about the interaction between the two passages, I would recommend that you read both and then move into the question stem. Doing otherwise will often take more time as you have to backtrack to find the additional information that you're missing in the answers.
