Reading Comprehension: Theory and Practice

2

In my latest post I suggested an approach to reading comprehension that asks you to simplify concepts to basic level so that you can catch the core of the arguments that are most essential for answering questions. That’s fine in theory, but theory and practice do not always equate so I wanted to take this opportunity to look at how that strategy might work in practice.

I have always suggested reading The Economist to my graduate-level students looking for material that mimics reading passages on the GRE or GMAT. High school students may find those articles a level above what’s likely to appear on the ACT or SAT, but there is still some value there. So, I went to the front-page of the magazine’s website looking for the article that would seem most intimidating to students who jumped into it without any introduction on a test. Here is the article that I found. Open it in another tab and read it and then come back.

Welcome back. Unless you’re a big beetle aficionado you probably weren’t familiar with the subject of that article. No worries. Let’s look at how we can break it down into easily digestible pieces that will get to the core of the passage.

Paragraph 1: A mystery is presented: why so many beetles?

Paragraph 2: Previous attempts to figure this out focused on new species. A new approach looks at whether beetle species are less likely to go extinct.

Paragraph 3: How they tested theory: fossils

Paragraph 4: More methods and conclusion: specific group seems hard to exterminate

Paragraph 5: Other beetles have died off but this specific group seems to survive

Paragraph 6: This isn’t a complete answer to the question, but it’s a start

The basics I’ve presented above distill the article into it’s essential structure and basic elements. My outline may not answer every question you’re asked, but it will answer many of them and it will point you toward the answer in most other cases. There are lots of places in this article to get tripped up. Did you know what “catholic tastes in food” were? I didn’t. I was able to figure it out from context, but unless it was asked about specifically, it’s certainly not something you should focus on. The same goes for the specific research methodology or the names or the particular scientists involved in the research. Rather than over-complicating passages, simplify them down like you would explain them to a 12-year old. By focusing on the core ideas, you’ll get to the heart of what you’re likely to be questioned on.