A) Roaches have long been unfairly vilified.and would also reject
B) Those who use hydramethylnon are heartless.and would instead pick
C) The purpose of poisons is to eliminate pests, rather than torture
them.The point here is that you could go down the inference rabbit hole and arrive
at choices A or B. “Well,” you could say, “he does call hydrametha-whatever
medieval, and in medieval Europe outsiders were often vilified as an excuse to
torture and kill them, so perhaps we can say that he is arguing that roaches were
similarly vilified.” Do you see how many twists and turns we had to take to
arrive at that answer? The correct answer will require no more than one, and
most often zero, brain-twists to arrive at the correct inference. Stick to the text!
You should be able to pinpoint exactly where you found evidence for your answer. Prove this to yourself by circling or underlining theevidence in the text.
—Samantha
Both explicit and implicit meaning questions might be followed by questions
that look like this:
Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous
question?
A) “There are many ways to skin a cat, and many ways to kill a bug.”
(line 1)
B) “Scientists agree on one thing . . . studies have shown.” (line 7)
C) “Not only is fipronil . . . organ erosion.” (line 13)
D) “Famous last words.” (line 25)We call these follow-up evidence questions, because they ask you to point at
the line that proves your previous answer. If you answered the previous question
correctly, then this should be no problem, but if you did not, then you might just
double-down on wrong answers! Be careful! In the previous question, it is C, the
line about fipronil, that proves the answer to the previous implicit meaning
question.