Part 4: Viewpoints
What Part 4 Is¶
You read an opinion-style article (the author plus at least one contrasting viewpoint) and then a short reader comment you must complete using drop-down blanks. Most questions are Inference (what speakers would agree with, what a sentence implies, attitude/tone), mixed with a few General Meaning items. There are 10 items with a target time of ~13 minutes.
The Opinions Map (your core routine)¶
Spend 45–60 seconds before touching options:
1. Identify Voices¶
- Author (main voice in the article)
- Other viewpoints (opponents, sceptics, supporters, stakeholders)
- Reader comment (a separate voice for drop-downs)
2. Capture Stance + Reason¶
For each voice: position (for/against/mixed) → why (one short reason)
3. Mark Strength & Hedges¶
- Hedges (soften): may, might, could, tends to, appears, some, often
- Boosters (strengthen): clearly, definitely, strong evidence, shows that
4. Spot Contrast Markers¶
however, although, whereas, in contrast, on the other hand, still, even so
Example Map
- Author: supports longer hours → reduces crowding
- Resident A: supports (parent) → after-work access
- Resident B: opposes → hire staff instead
- Commenter: neutral-leaning support → asks about budget
Four Lenses for Every Claim¶
When verifying an option, check all four:
| Lens | Ask Yourself |
|---|---|
| Claim | What exactly is being asserted? (policy, cause/effect, prediction, value judgement) |
| Evidence | What reasons are given? (data, examples, logic) |
| Scope | Who/when/where? (residents vs commuters; evenings vs weekends) |
| Strength | Cautious (may help) or absolute (will fix)? |
A correct option must match all four for the same speaker.
Question Patterns¶
"Would agree / most likely agrees"¶
- Anchor: Your opinions map
- Method: Find the voice, re-state their stance, eliminate options that exaggerate or shift the claim
- Trap: Assigning the author's view to a commenter (or vice versa)
"Implied / suggested by the statement"¶
- Anchor: The sentence + its context (before/after)
- Method: Take one logical step, not three. Respect hedges
- Trap: Outside knowledge ("In real life…") — if not traceable to text, reject
"Author's attitude / tone"¶
- Anchor: Adverbs, adjectives, hedges/boosters around the claim
- Method: Choose labels matching strength (e.g., cautiously supportive, skeptical, concerned)
- Trap: Extreme labels (outraged, dismissive) when language is balanced
"Best title / main purpose"¶
- Anchor: The whole article
- Method: Reject options too narrow (one paragraph) or that flip stance
- Trap: Glitter detail titles (names, numbers) that miss the argument
"Purpose of paragraph/sentence"¶
- Anchor: Position in the argument
- Method: Is the line introducing, contrasting, conceding, giving evidence, or concluding?
- Trap: Confusing a concession ("Even supporters admit…") with a reversal
The Three Golden Tests¶
Run these on every option:
- Speaker test — Who would say this? If the voice doesn't match → eliminate
- Strength test — Does modality match? (may vs will; some vs most vs all)
- Scope test — Same group/time/place? If it widens or narrows without support → wrong
The Drop-Down Comment¶
Complete the reader comment with: acknowledge → position → reason/next step
- Meaning fit — Insert each option, read the full sentence. Must not contradict the article
- Speaker fit — The commenter's voice must stay coherent across blanks (don't switch from pro to anti mid-comment)
- Tone fit — Keep it civil and proportional to the article's register
- Strength fit — If the commenter is cautious, avoid bold claims
High-Frequency Traps¶
| Trap | What Happens |
|---|---|
| Stance swap | Option assigns the author's view to a commenter or flips who supports what |
| Over-boost | Passage says may help; option says will solve |
| Scope stretch | Claim about evenings becomes "all hours" |
| Strawman | Option criticizes an argument the text never makes |
| Concession confusion | A sentence admitting a downside is treated as if the author opposes the policy |
| New info injection | Option adds evidence not mentioned anywhere |
Concession ≠ Reversal
"Although X, the author still supports Y." Options that treat the concession as a flip are wrong.
Timing Plan (~13 minutes)¶
| Phase | Time |
|---|---|
| Build Opinions Map | ~1:00 |
| First pass: stance/structure items (agree/disagree, best title, purpose) | ~6:30 |
| Second pass: inference + comment drop-downs | ~4:00 |
| Final sweep: absolute-wording check, no blanks, comment reads smoothly | ~1:30 |
Checkpoints: At 7:30, have 6–7 items locked. Start the comment by 9:30.
Quick Error Fixes¶
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Mixed up speakers | Rebuild the Opinions Map; highlight names at each claim |
| Chose absolute language | If the speaker uses may/might, your option can't use will/must |
| Misread a concession | Label it: "acknowledges downside but keeps stance" |
| Drop-down contradiction | After insertion, read the entire sentence — if it flips stance or tone, reject |
| Ran out of time | Answer stance/structure items first; leave dense inference for second pass |
Micro-Routines for Practice¶
Agreement Chain¶
- Find the exact sentence where a voice states their stance
- Extract the reason they give
- Eliminate any option missing that reason or changing its strength
Implication Glide¶
- Read the line plus the next line
- Ask: "If this is true, what is the smallest thing that follows?"
- Reject options needing two+ steps or outside facts
Comment Drop-Down Sanity¶
- Insert an option
- Read the whole sentence in your head
- If tone or facts wobble → reject, try the next option