GRE Text Completion and Sentence Equivalence: A Little Grammar Does a World of Good (Part 2)
So, in my last post, I discussed finding the core sentence, using punctuation to help us break a sentence into manageable chunks. We looked at two sentences; I’ve re-copied one of them below.
The director’s commercially-motivated attempts to (i)_______ the imperatives of the mass marketplace were (ii)_______, as evidenced by the critical acclaim but low attendance garnered by his film.
We focused on how the comma breaks the sentence in half: one half is the actual core sentence, and the other half describes how the director’s attempts were critically, but not commercially, successful.
This time, let’s dive into what’s happening with that first blank, and now I’ll give you the answer options:
sequester
obey
secure.
Many, many students in my classes choose ‘secure’, and that really puzzled me. If a class doesn’t know the answer, there’s usually a fairly even division among the choices. What I saw wasn’t students guessing; they thought they had the correct choice in ‘secure’. Somehow, the third option was a trap. How?
I have a theory: ‘secure’ is a trap because students link the first blank to the wrong element, the wrong target. I think many students link that first blank to the word ‘marketplace’, and then think about how someone would want to ‘secure’ a ‘market’ for a product (in this case, a film).
This is where a quick analysis of ‘internal’ descriptors (as opposed to ‘external’ descriptors, which is what I consider the stuff after the comma) can keep us sane in TC and SE.[1]
An external descriptor just sort of describes an entire idea: not the director, or the attempt, or the marketplace – just what the attempt was. However, the phrase ‘of the mass marketplace’ is a specific, internal descriptor; this means a general idea of what’s described isn’t enough. We need the exact word. What of the mass marketplace? ‘The imperatives’. So the ‘marketplace’ describes which imperatives we are discussing, and our blank’s true target is the word ‘imperatives’.
Well, an imperative is a command. What would work as a fill-in for what we could do to a command? You can give commands, or follow commands – and if these are the commands of the mass marketplace, the market is giving the commands, and director is trying to follow them. We need a word like ‘obey’; the director’s attempts to obey the commands of the mass marketplace.
Let’s look at another example, this time from the 5lb. Book of GRE Practice Problems.
82. Debates over free will have always focused on the extent to which humans may be said to be fully (i) _________ their actions. Dr. Wegner in his article deliberately and artfully (ii) ________ the traditional talking points of the controversy, instead asking a tangential, though possibly more (iii) _________, question: What effect does a person’s belief in free will have on his or her well-being?
I’d like to focus on the second blank. The options are
mitigates
eschews
contradicts.
This is, in my opinion, another instance when clear analysis of internal descriptors can help. Does the blank target ‘talking points’ or ‘controversy’? ‘Of the controversy’ describes ‘talking points’, not our blank. So our target is ‘talking points’. Why do I find this interesting? Well, one could conceivably mitigate a controversy, but how would one mitigate talking points? ‘Mitigates’ is an option for the wrong target. Stay away!!!
As for which of the remaining two choices is correct, look at the portion after the comma: if Wegner ‘instead [asks] a tangential … question’, I would say he avoids those talking points. Eschews is then the best option.
So, in summary: watch out for internal descriptors! Make sure you know exactly what’s described, because these can be appealing trap targets!
_________________________
[1] I’m trying to avoid a discussion of specific grammar terms, such as appositive, prepositional phrase, or gerund. In my opinion, that’s too MUCH grammar!