How to fix a technique error I made I RC?

[EvanL786]

It is the 65th question in RC of OG13.

The question is that “how to weaken the validity of the isotope record taken from ocean sediments". ( I changed most of the words, so it is ok to post this question)
When I saw the question, I tried to find where the answer locates. By looking at my notes, I knew that the 2rd para is about the process of formation of such record and the 3rd para is about the advantages of such record.
I assumed that the answer would be in 2rd para, so I read the details of it. Then when I read the options, I found out the answers actually locate in the 3rd para. Since I wasted some time and I thought I don't have enough time to read the details of 3rd para, I made an educated guess.

I am really confused now. Reading the detail of 2nd para is really a waste of time. If I didn't do so, I might have more chances to do it right.
Thus, should I skim the options first, when I confront a specific question which I am not sure about the location of answer? In that case, I may confirm the location of answer, but doing so also consumes me some time and in most cases I don't have such a problem.
If this method cannot work out, can instructor give me some advises to address this problem?
Thanks in advance！

[RonPurewal]

you just need to think more carefully about the specifics of the question.

the question is about why this record is useful to human researchers. (technically the question is about what would make it less useful, but obviously the passage isn't going to talk about such things; therefore, you'll have to find what makes it useful, and just reverse whatever that is.)

you summarized the content of the two paragraphs perfectly:

the 2rd para is about the process of formation of such record and the 3rd para is about the advantages of such record.

... but you didn't relate that summary to the goal of this question.

^^ the second paragraph is pure science. it's just a description of how the record was formed.
this has nothing to do with why the record might be useful to human researchers.

the third paragraph describes "advantages", which are precisely those reasons why this method is more useful than other methods. (this is just a common-sense interpretation of the word "advantages"; no special knowledge.)
so, you should look for the opposite of one of the 2 advantages.

[RonPurewal]

Thus, should I skim the options first, when I confront a specific question which I am not sure about the location of answer?

at the end of the day, you should try a whole bunch of different strategies, and then go with the one that produces the best results.

that said, i don't think this strategy (peeking at the choices) is a good one. it's not likely to be very efficient--and, worse, it could cause you to be misled (since the wrong answers often cite other information from the passage).

the most efficient way to tackle these questions is to think very slowly and carefully about exactly what you need to go find in the passage.
DO NOT RUSH this step.
for instance, in this question, you shouldn't go to the passage until you've realized "ok, i need to find information on why this record is valuable to humans." once you've properly realized that this is the goal, you'll know that the third paragraph is the right place to look (and that the second paragraph is the wrong place to look!).

[RonPurewal]

in general—
on detail questions, by the time you get to the choices, most of your work should be already done.
these questions basically just "re-package" the information that's already in the passage. so, if your search is properly focused, you should have a very short list of information that might show up in the correct answer.

for instance, in this question, the passage lists exactly two reasons why this method is useful (= "advantages"). so, there are exactly two possible correct answers in the entire universe:
1/ the opposite of advantage #1 (= not global, lots of variation)
2/ the opposite of advantage #2 (= less continuous than the record from land rocks)
... that's it.
by the time you actually look at the answer choices, it's mostly just a formality—you're looking for answers that you've already formulated.

[EvanL786]

Ron, THANKS SO MUCH!!

[EvanL786]

Ron, I have some idea about this question, but I am not sure I am right. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Since this question is an inference question, the correct answer must come from the passage. In this case, the correct answer is irrelevent to the process of formation. It is just opposite to the advantages.

However, if the question is " which of the following, if ture, would weaken the validity of the isotope record taken from ocean sediments". In this case, the new information from the correct answer may have something to do with the process of formation. It may weaken the validity of the record. For example, maybe one step of the process mentioned in the passage is wrong or maybe some other things lead to the results.

If I am wrong, please give me some advises.
If I am right, in the 2nd situation( the answer offer us new information), the question would be very difficult, since the process of formation is so complex.

[RonPurewal]

However, if the question is " which of the following, if ture, would weaken the validity of the isotope record taken from ocean sediments".

this question is nonsense.

the isotope record is a thing. it doesn't have "validity" (or lack thereof).
one could query the "validity" of some method of analyzing this record ... but not of the record itself.

[RonPurewal]

analogy:
let's say someone tries to guess a person's body weight from measurements of the person's clothes.

"Discuss the validity of this method of estimating body weight"
... well, it has limited validity.
it's not an exceedingly precise method, because it doesn't account for personal style (e.g., it would underestimate the weight of someone who wears tight clothes, and/or overestimate the weight of someone who wears loose clothes). also, there's the problem of muscle vs. fat density.
however, it has some validity, in the sense that a person's clothes should provide at least an approximate sense of how big that person is.

"Discuss the validity of a person's body weight"
this question is nonsense. a person's body weight obviously exists, and obviously has some objective value.

[EvanL786]

you just need to think more carefully about the specifics of the question.

the question is about why this record is useful to human researchers. (technically the question is about what would make it less useful, but obviously the passage isn't going to talk about such things; therefore, you'll have to find what makes it useful, and just reverse whatever that is.)

you summarized the content of the two paragraphs perfectly:

the 2rd para is about the process of formation of such record and the 3rd para is about the advantages of such record.

... but you didn't relate that summary to the goal of this question.

^^ the second paragraph is pure science. it's just a description of how the record was formed.
this has nothing to do with why the record might be useful to human researchers.

the third paragraph describes "advantages", which are precisely those reasons why this method is more useful than other methods. (this is just a common-sense interpretation of the word "advantages"; no special knowledge.)
so, you should look for the opposite of one of the 2 advantages.

Thanks for your explanation.
Since this question is an inference question, I totally understand what you say, but what if this question is "which of the following, if ture, may make the record less useful" . In this case, we have some new information from the question, the new information may have something to do with how the record was formed. For example, the scientists thought that A leads to the formation of B, but in fact C actually leads to the formation of B. In this case, Scientists cannot do research about B to get the information of A . Then B is less useful, right?

[RonPurewal]

in theory that's possible, but RC problems aren't going to make you think that hard.
the primary challenge of RC detail questions is FINDING STUFF. once you find the stuff, you shouldn't have to do too much brain-work.
in fact, if you ARE doing a good deal of non-trivial brain-work with the stuff you find, then you're probably headed down the wrong path.

[RonPurewal]

on the other hand, the situation you're describing would make a splendid backdrop for a CR "weaken" question.


you could even use this as a quite reliable guideline for RC detail questions:
if you're doing a RC detail question, but you're THINKING as much as you would for a CR problem... you're probably doing something wrong.

on RC detail questions, the two "hard" things should be specifying and searching.
different skill set.