Foundations of comprehension dove
into the fundamental building blocks that make up a car's passage.
Reasoning within the text,
now, gets into the exciting stuff.
This is where we start to make connections,
to compare one part of a passage to another,
and to really get an idea
of how a passage is stitched together.
Let's start with a basic overview
for what reasoning within the text questions are.
How they might differ from foundations of comprehension questions
and some specifics about how the questions of this type are structured.
How they can draw out different perspectives
from the same piece of data within the car's passage.
Reasoning within the text questions at this level ask you
to evaluate the integrity of a car's passage.
Does it fit together into a cohesive whole?
Do individual aspects connect well logically?
Is the end result a work of art
or a scattered presentation of different ideas?
In many ways, these questions challenge the assumptions
that we have held for foundations of comprehension questions.
Well, we just assumed that the passage was a cohesive whole
and we're simply evaluating the individual aspects.
Reasoning within the text questions test the idea of synergy
that a whole should ideally be greater than the sum of its parts.
Foundations of comprehension questions ask us to evaluate meaning
and intent from the immediate sentence context.
Reasoning within the text questions ask you to compare and contrast claims,
perhaps, multiple paragraphs away.
A type of reasoning within text question can also ask you to relate an individual claim
within a passage to that overall purpose or main idea.
This is one of the many reasons I suggest you
to use the first one or two questions of a car's passage
to really ground yourself solidly
in the main idea before moving forward.
Remember, a lot of questions require you to understand
the main idea even if they don't directly test it?
If foundations of comprehension questions
are specific and straight to the point,
reasoning within the text questions
require a more generalized and connected approach.
This is the same skillset we use to evaluate direct main idea
or thesis questions but applied to a subset of the passage.
You can see why reasoning within the text questions
are uniquely matched to be paired
with how individual passage elements
fit into the overall purpose.
It's as crucial as ever within these question types
to follow the train of thought that the question stem presents
and not to insert your own opinion or directionality,
a point we will continue to reinforce.
To illustrate this, let's look at the same claim
and then, evaluate it in three different ways
based on the criteria that could theoretically be provided
by a question stem.
The statement is really quite simple.
Grass is green.
A reasoning within the text question might ask you,
evaluate this from another portion of the passage
where a color analyst was discussed.
A color analyst will focus on the specific hue of the grass,
perhaps, the pigments that give it its color.
They would try to compare its color to a palette
that they were already familiar with.
Same statement, grass is green.
How about comparing this to a perspective of a biologist
that was discussed in the passage?
The biologist might point out that the capacity to distinguish
different shades of green is an adaptive property.
Does this shade of green indicate if the plant is edible?
Lastly, grass is green.
And the question stem asks you to evaluate this from the perspective
of a psychoanalyst who was discussed in the passage.
This psychoanalyst will probably ask why a person
who stated such an obvious fact would have done so.
Does the color green signify an underlying emotional attachment?
In contrast to the color analyst, the psychoanalyst will probably try to gloss
over the specific hue of the grass
and instead, focus on the general concept of the color green.
Likewise, go as general or as specific into the evaluation of a reasoning
within the text question as the questions ask you to do so.