 We're doing five paired passages in five minutes. I'm going to show you how to crush these questions quickly. Here, how would Strauss and L'Arzelaire or most likely respond to Gershov and Durant's claim that the physical discipline has been linked to mental health issues? So I only need to focus on the first text. I don't need to look in the second one because they already gave me the claim. So I'm just going to look in the first text to see how they would respond. And as I start looking at the first sentence, it says that physical discipline can be an effective tool for teaching children appropriate behavior. When used appropriately, there's the key word. And in moderation can positively influence. Okay, I can stop reading there. So I know for sure that they don't completely disagree on this one particular point. And so I can already say that A is false because they would not discredit the other study. They wouldn't just completely disagree with the claim that physical discipline has been linked to mental health issues because they acknowledge that it needs to be used appropriately. C says that they would argue that it has no link to mental health. Again, not true. They argued that it needs to be used appropriately. That leaves us with a D. They would agree that physical discipline can be linked to mental health if used inappropriately. That's the thing that we can say is definitely true about these two authors. How would Professor Gilbermelka respond to the claims made by Dr. Olivier de Shane? Okay, generally here what I like to do is look at the claims first and then consider what the response might be. So I want to look at what de Shane has to say and he's in the second text. Looking at where I see his name, it says de Shane has shown that when implemented correctly, carbon taxes can be a powerful incentive to reduce emissions without stifling economic growth or disproportionately burdening certain industries. Okay, so this guy is in favor of carbon taxes. Gilbermelka says that while they may reduce emissions, the costs could be too high for some economies to bear due to their aggressive nature and disproportionate impact on low income households. So we understand here that they agree that these things could reduce emissions but that they also have a really significant cost towards poor people and low income families. First one says that while they may generate income, the associated costs will inevitably result in an increase in temperatures. Okay, that's not the case. He acknowledged that they could reduce emissions which would not increase temperatures. B, while carbon taxes may provide revenue, they're implementing them as futile. Okay, that's a little too extreme. I don't think that's gonna be his answer. He would argue that while carbon taxes may generate income, the associated costs of these policies could potentially exceed any advantages since they're often aggressive and have a greater impact on those with lower incomes. That's my right answer. That mentions two things that he specifically said and there's nothing in there that I can say is objectively wrong. Howard Andrew, President of the Liberty, responded to the claims made by Professor Keith Hampton. He says that social media can have positive effects on individuals and increase their sense of belonging and connected this to others. Meanwhile, this guy's argument is that excessive use can lead to addiction-like behavior where people become reliant upon these sites, likely agree with the potential benefits but they pale in comparison to the risks. I feel like pale in comparison's also a little extreme. He would likely acknowledge the potential benefits but could caution against relying on it too heavily to avoid potential negative mental health outcomes. That sounds like the right answer to me. This one's tricky. Howard Anuma responded to a subsequent publication by Cato claiming to have completely proven his theory using Anuma's findings. Now, in this question, there's a key phrase here which has completely proven his theory. So we need to know what Cato's theory is, what Anuma found, and what piece of information might be missing because it's pretty hard to completely do anything. If we take a look at Cato's paragraph first, it says here that he's talking about this species, P. Japonica, which he says moved from Russia to Honshu Island in Japan due to sea level rise. The second text from Anuma talks about fossil evidence that was found in Honshu Island which would show that then those creatures did in fact migrate to that island and it could make sense that it was because the sea levels rose and then they could go to a different island. Awesome, but notice that Cato's original theory talked about moving from Russia to Japan and Anuma's work only focuses on the island in Japan. So there is a key piece of information missing. Where did they come from originally? Did they originate in Russia or did they migrate to Russia? And are we 100% sure that it was because of sea level rise due to tectonic activity? So the first one here is just a little too positive. Will it likely be, please be like, oh, great job. Thank you so much. Good work for you. Now these are scientists. There's always something more that they need to research. B, he would likely point out that while Cato's theory may provide some insight into the evolution of P. Japonica, its origins in Russia are still unconfirmed and more research needs to be done. That's a great answer from a scientist right there. That's the one you want. How would Peter Heather, text two, address the main idea of Edward Gibbons text? It says here that the fall of Rome is due to its own internal moral decay. And right away, the first sentence uses the phrase in contrast, which is telling me that they think differently. He says that the decline of Rome can be attributed more so to competition with outside kingdoms such as Persia and Germania. You would argue that moral decay was not the primary cause, yes, and instead point to external forces such as those from Persia and Germania. There you go. There's your right answer. A, market and move on. With paired passages, the most important thing for you to do is put things in order. What do you need to read first? If you're just reading the two texts together and you're reading them start to finish, you're gonna waste so much time. When you focus on the question, you can understand what you should read first. And so generally I always wanna read what is being responded to, right? So if passage two is gonna respond to passage one, I wanna read passage one first so that I can understand its core ideas. And then I'm gonna read the second passage to see how those ideas are different. And once I know what the difference is, I just gotta look for an answer that kinda summarizes that difference of opinion. Try to scan for the name of the author to help you find the information you need faster from the text. It doesn't make sense to read the whole paragraph. A lot of times I can just sort of find the author's name and see what their position is or what their hypothesis is or what their research showed. And then I can get the key information I need very quickly. If you can learn to dissect the question and then figure out exactly what you need to read and then get to that part quickly and just extract the key information without reading the whole paragraph, you can answer questions quickly like this too.