CR Strategies - Describe the role

[danielle.wipperfurth]

Critical Reasoning 5th Edition, pgs. 54 & 55

Hi. My question is on general strategy for Describe the Role problems. Up until reading this, I have applied the following strategy on these types of problems: read the passage carefully to ensure comprehension (taking brief notes when necessary), pause to determine the relationship between the bold sections in my own mind before looking at the answer choices, and then look at the answer choices, referring back the the passage only if necessary.

The methods recommended in the strategy guide advocate for taking more notes on both the passage and the answer choices than i had been doing and slow me down a lot. I appreciate that they have gotten me to think about whether the sentence is a premise, conclusion, etc. but feel like this strategy is much slower and no more accurate than what I had been doing.

Based on your expertise, should I keep trying to apply the strategy outlined in the book, assuming I will get faster over time and ultimately will be more accurate or might I be better off applying my original strategy?

Thank you!

[jnelson0612]

Critical Reasoning 5th Edition, pgs. 54 & 55

Hi. My question is on general strategy for Describe the Role problems. Up until reading this, I have applied the following strategy on these types of problems: read the passage carefully to ensure comprehension (taking brief notes when necessary), pause to determine the relationship between the bold sections in my own mind before looking at the answer choices, and then look at the answer choices, referring back the the passage only if necessary.

The methods recommended in the strategy guide advocate for taking more notes on both the passage and the answer choices than i had been doing and slow me down a lot. I appreciate that they have gotten me to think about whether the sentence is a premise, conclusion, etc. but feel like this strategy is much slower and no more accurate than what I had been doing.

Based on your expertise, should I keep trying to apply the strategy outlined in the book, assuming I will get faster over time and ultimately will be more accurate or might I be better off applying my original strategy?

Thank you!

Hi Danielle,
Note taking on critical reasoning questions is highly up to you! If taking so many notes is slowing you down and not helping then only take notes if you really need them and get something out of taking them. If you can identify the conclusion and premises in your head, or just jot them down briefly, I'm perfectly fine with that as long as you get the answers right. :-) If you find that your accuracy is slipping you may wish to take more notes. Best wishes!

[danielle.wipperfurth]

Thank you! I really appreciate your advice.

[jnelson0612]

Thank you! I really appreciate your advice.

My pleasure! :-)

[deem432]

Can anyone provide a deeper comparison of the primary and secondary method for solving describe the role critical reasoning problems? I have been studying with the secondary method but the book has so far only given answer explanations in the primary method. I originally went with the secondary method because the primary method can be more time consuming. I'm am looking for more pros and cons so I can move forward studying with whatever method is the best option for me.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

to be honest, i'd recommend something altogether different for a number-one method:

• imagine a conversation in which someone is delivering this argument to you. give a NAME to the speaker--this will make everything more "real".
(if your native language is english, mentally translate it into words that people would actually say--not the dense, formal writing that's currently there.
if your native language is another language, mentally translate into a conversation in your native language.)

• for each boldface, ask yourself, "why is [name] telling me this?"

• answer that question in as much detail as you possibly can.

• if the boldface is someone else's thoughts (e.g., "it is commonly thought that..."), ALWAYS frame it in terms of the speaker's intentions (e.g., "this is a prediction that [name] thinks will turn out to be false.")

both of the methods in the book are essentially back-ups, in case you can't quite create a vivid dialogue in your head.
if you can, you should be able to come up with much more exact answers--essentially, answers that reflect what's in the correct answer choice.

[RonPurewal]

e.g.,
Kyle says:
The floor is all wet. You blamed my dogs, saying that they probably peed all over the floor. However, the dogs have been in their crates the whole time we were gone, and there's an overturned bottle over there. So, I think the wetness came from the bottle, not from the dogs.

(no, there will never be 3 boldfaces, but this is just an illustration)

BEFORE SCROLLING TO THE NEXT POST... see how exactly you can answer "Why does Kyle say each of these things?"

[RonPurewal]

pink:
this is a fact. Kyle is seeking an explanation for it.
(in answer-choice language: "The first is an observation that the argument seeks to explain.")

blue:
this is factual evidence that the other person (to whom Kyle is talking) is wrong. note--it is NOT evidence for kyle's argument; it's just evidence against the other guy.
(in answer-choice language: "The second is evidence used to call into question an explanation that the argument challenges" -- note that Kyle = "the argument").

green:
this is factual evidence that Kyle is right.
(in answer-choice language: "The third is evidence used to support an explanation that the argument favors.")


if you can come up with these--which, if you can create a vivid enough dialogue (or, more accurately, monologue) in your head, shouldn't be excessively hard--then, of course, these are much better than just "background, premise, premise".

so, basically...
Plan A = EXACT characterization (EXACTLY WHY is this person telling me xxxxx?)
Plan B = anything involving "categories" or "types" of things.

[RonPurewal]

... and, at this point, you may be wondering why the book does so much of the things i'm calling "plan B" here, and so little of the things i'm calling "plan A".

the reason is simple: because it's a printed book.

"plan A" here relies entirely on everyday human intuition--which is hardly special or rare, but is impossible to distill into rules that can be printed in a book. (if you could do that, you'd become the richest person on earth virtually overnight, since you'd thereby have invented "strong artificial intelligence".)

"plan B", on the other hand, involves a very small number of "categories", which can be collated neatly into tables, boxes, and so on.

"plan A" is better, because it's so much more exact. (in the example above, there are two fundamentally different kinds of evidence--one piece of evidence for kyle, one against the other guy--but, in the categorization, both of these are shoved into the same box of "premise".)
however, "plan B" DOES solve lots of the problems, because the wrong answers are usually so wrong that even a crude understanding is enough to eliminate them. hence it has value.