Master RC Philosophy Passages
Navigate abstract arguments, track multiple viewpoints, and avoid the “wrong philosopher” trap. Turn intimidating philosophy passages into predictable score opportunities.
Table of Contents
đ Philosophy Passage Flashcards
Master abstract arguments and viewpoint tracking
Loading…
Loading…
đŻ Test Your Philosophy Passage Skills
5 CAT-style questions with detailed explanations
đŻ Test Complete!
Utilitarians argue that an action’s moral worth depends entirely on its consequencesâspecifically, whether it maximizes overall happiness. On this view, lying is wrong only because lies typically produce bad outcomes; in situations where deception would clearly increase total welfare, lying becomes not merely permissible but obligatory.
Kant rejected this consequentialist framework entirely. He argued that certain actionsâlying, promise-breaking, using people merely as meansâare intrinsically wrong regardless of outcomes. The categorical imperative demands that we act only according to principles we could will as universal laws. Since a universal law permitting lies would undermine the very institution of truth-telling upon which successful lying depends, lying is categorically forbidden.
The tension between these views emerges starkly in cases where honesty produces terrible consequences. Kant notoriously maintained that one must not lie even to a murderer asking for a victim’s locationâa conclusion many find morally monstrous.
According to the passage, Kant’s view differs from the utilitarian view primarily in that Kant:
â Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: The passage explicitly contrasts the two positions: utilitarians judge actions by consequences, while Kant argued certain actions “are intrinsically wrong regardless of outcomes.” This is the core differenceâKant’s “categorical imperative” represents rules that apply universally, not contingently on outcomes.
Option C is the classic “wrong philosopher” trapâmaximizing happiness is the UTILITARIAN position, not Kant’s. The passage explicitly states this is what “utilitarians argue.”
Option D isn’t distinctive to Kantâutilitarians also believe lies “typically produce bad outcomes.” The difference is whether consequences DETERMINE moral worth.
The problem of induction has troubled philosophers since Hume first articulated it. We routinely infer from observed patterns to unobserved casesâthe sun has risen every morning, so it will rise tomorrow. But what justifies this inference? We cannot appeal to past success of induction without assuming induction is reliable, which begs the question.
Some philosophers respond by denying the problem’s significance. Science works, they argue, and inductive reasoning underlies scientific success. Why demand further justification for something so obviously fruitful? This pragmatic response, however, changes the subject. The question isn’t whether induction is useful but whether it’s rationally justifiedâwhether we have good reason to think conclusions reached inductively are likely true.
Others argue that induction requires no justification external to itselfâit simply is what rational beings do. But this too seems unsatisfying, as it merely relabels the question rather than answering it.
The passage presents the pragmatic response to the problem of induction as:
â Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: The passage explicitly states the pragmatic response “changes the subject.” It argues that the question “isn’t whether induction is useful but whether it’s rationally justified.” The pragmatists answer one question (Is induction useful?) while Hume’s problem concerns another (Is induction rationally justified?).
Option A contradicts the author’s evaluationâthe author does NOT present the pragmatic response as successful. The author criticizes it for “changing the subject.”
Option D is an evaluative claim the passage doesn’t makeâit doesn’t rank responses as “strongest available.”
Libertarians argue that individual liberty is the paramount political value and that state coercion is justified only to prevent harm to others. Taxation for redistributive purposes violates this principle, as it forces individuals to surrender property for ends they may not endorse. Robert Nozick famously argued that taxation of earnings is “on a par with forced labor”âyou work, and the state claims part of your productive effort.
Critics respond that this framework presupposes a natural right to pre-tax income that itself requires justification. Property rights are social constructions, maintained by state infrastructureâcourts, police, contract enforcement. There is no “natural” income existing prior to social arrangements from which taxation extracts. The libertarian argument, critics contend, treats socially constructed distributions as natural baselines.
Libertarians might respond that even if property rights are conventional, the principle against coercion stands independently. But this moves the debate from property to liberty itselfâwhether the state’s protective functions already involve coercion that undermines libertarian purity.
The passage suggests that critics of libertarianism challenge:
â Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: The critics’ argument directly targets the libertarian assumption that “pre-tax income” is a natural baseline from which taxation “extracts.” Critics argue property rights are “social constructions” and “there is no ‘natural’ income existing prior to social arrangements.” The challenge is to the premise that there’s a natural entitlement being violated.
Option A is wrong because critics don’t reject liberty as a valueâthey challenge the specific argument about taxation.
Option D reverses the critics’ pointâcritics AFFIRM state functions (“maintained by state infrastructureâcourts, police”). They use state necessity as part of their ARGUMENT.
The institutional theory of art holds that something becomes art when the artworldâa network of artists, critics, curators, and institutionsâconfers that status upon it. This explains why Duchamp’s urinal could become art when displayed in a gallery context while remaining mere plumbing in a bathroom. Art is not defined by intrinsic properties but by social recognition.
Critics object that this theory is viciously circular. What makes someone a member of the artworld? Presumably, their involvement with art. But we cannot define art by reference to the artworld and the artworld by reference to art without moving in circles. The theory presupposes the very concept it purports to analyze.
Defenders respond that the circularity is not vicious but informative. Many concepts work this wayâwe understand “game” through examples of games without non-circular definitions. The artworld concept illuminates how art functions socially even if it cannot provide necessary and sufficient conditions in traditional philosophical fashion.
The author presents defenders’ response to the circularity objection as:
â Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: Defenders respond that “the circularity is not vicious but informative,” comparing art to “game”âa concept understood through examples without non-circular definitions. The defense acknowledges circularity but argues this type of circularity is acceptable and illuminating rather than fatal.
Option A contradicts defenders’ concessionâthey explicitly acknowledge the theory “cannot provide necessary and sufficient conditions in traditional philosophical fashion.”
Option C is the opposite of defenders’ positionâthey argue the concept “illuminates how art functions socially,” affirming explanatory value.
The hard problem of consciousness concerns why physical processes give rise to subjective experience at all. We can explain how the brain processes information, discriminates stimuli, and controls behavior. But why is there “something it is like” to undergo these processes? Why aren’t we philosophical zombiesâfunctionally identical to humans but lacking inner experience?
Physicalists typically respond in two ways. Some deny the problem’s coherence, arguing that once we explain all cognitive functions, nothing remains unexplainedâthe “hard problem” dissolves upon analysis. Others accept the explanatory gap but argue it’s epistemic, not ontological. We can’t deduce experience from physical descriptions, but this reflects our conceptual limitations, not a gap in nature itself.
Neither response fully satisfies those who find consciousness irreducibly mysterious. The first seems to change the subjectâexplaining function while ignoring experience. The second acknowledges the difficulty but leaves unexplained why our concepts fail precisely here. Perhaps consciousness reveals limits to physicalist explanation, or perhaps future conceptual revolutions will dissolve present puzzlements.
Based on the passage, the author’s position on the hard problem of consciousness can best be described as:
â Correct! Option C is the answer.
Why C is correct: The author presents the hard problem, outlines two physicalist responses, then notes “neither response fully satisfies” without declaring either correct. The final sentence offers two possibilities (“Perhaps… or perhaps…”) without choosing between them. This is characteristic of exploratory philosophical writing that maps a debate without taking a firm position.
Option A overstates the author’s positionâthe author notes neither response “fully satisfies” but doesn’t conclude physicalism fails. “Firmly convinced” is too strong.
Option B contradicts the author’s evaluationâthe author explicitly criticizes the “dissolution” response as seeming “to change the subject.”
Option D treats possibility as certaintyâthe passage says “perhaps future revolutions will dissolve puzzlements” as one possibility among others, marked by “perhaps.”
đĄ How to Master Philosophy Passages
Strategic approaches to transform abstract arguments into predictable comprehension questions
The Viewpoint Tracking System
The #1 source of errors in philosophy passages is confusing whose view is whose. Master this attribution system:
-
1Identify the Source
For every significant claim, ask: WHO believes this? The author? A philosopher being discussed? An objector?
-
2Track Signal Language
Author’s view: “I argue,” “This essay contends” | Others’ views: “X argues,” “According to” | Criticism: “However,” “But this overlooks”
-
3Note the Response
The author’s position emerges from their RESPONSE to other views, not just from presenting those views.
-
4Verify Before Answering
For “author believes” questions, eliminate options representing views the author attributes to OTHERS or CRITICIZES.
For any claim, you should be able to say: “This is [Author/Kant/Mill/objector]’s view, and the author [agrees/disagrees/is neutral].” If you can’t attribute a claim, re-read the surrounding context.
Structure Recognition Framework
Philosophy passages follow predictable organizational patterns. Identifying the structure in paragraph 1 tells you what role each section plays:
Thesis-Defense Structure
Author states position â Provides arguments â Addresses counterarguments â Affirms thesis
Author’s position: The thesis stated early and defended throughout
Dialectical Structure (Most Confusing)
Thesis â Antithesis â Synthesis
- Thesis: Initial position presented
- Antithesis: Opposing position challenges it
- Synthesis: Third position reconciles or transcends both
Author’s position: Usually favors the synthesis
Critique Structure
Present position â Identify problems â May propose alternative
Author’s position: The CRITIQUE, not the view being criticized
After reading paragraph 1, explicitly name the structure type. This prevents you from confusing setup material (views being discussed) with the author’s actual argument.
The Context-Over-Definition Approach
Don’t let unfamiliar philosophical terminology intimidate you. Treat abstract terms like scientific jargonâtrack function, not deep meaning:
- Track what the passage SAYS about terms, not what they “really mean”
- Context almost always clarifies how terms function in the argument
- Mark explicit definitionsâthey’re frequently tested
- Questions test passage comprehension, not philosophical background knowledge
Common Terms to Recognize
- Epistemology: Concerns knowledge (how we know things)
- Ontology: Concerns existence (what things are)
- Ethics: Concerns right and wrong
- Metaphysics: Concerns fundamental reality
When you encounter an unfamiliar term, don’t stop. Read the surrounding sentences. Ask: “What role does this term play in the argument? What claims are made about it?” The passage provides contextâuse it.
The 5 Philosophy Passage Traps
Philosophy passages have specific traps that exploit the complexity of multiple viewpoints and qualified positions:
Trap 1: Wrong Philosopher Attribution
Answer attributes a view to the wrong sourceâclaiming the author believes something a discussed philosopher believes.
Defense: Track who holds each view and verify attribution before selecting.
Trap 2: Objection as Position
States an objection as if it were the author’s view. Philosophy passages raise objections TO BE ANSWEREDâthe objection isn’t the author’s position.
Defense: Track objection-reply structure. Author’s view = the REPLY.
Trap 3: Oversimplification
Loses crucial qualifications. “Always” when passage says “usually.” Binary when passage acknowledges nuance.
Defense: Preserve passage hedgingâ”generally,” “in most cases,” “under certain conditions.”
Trap 4: Position-Example Confusion
States the example’s content as the main claim. The author’s main point is the abstract position, not the example.
Defense: When you see an example, immediately ask: “What abstract point does this illustrate?”
Trap 5: Extreme Statement
Absolute claim when passage is qualified. Philosophy passages are usually nuanced.
Defense: Match answer certainty to passage certainty. Simple, absolute answers are frequently traps.
Philosophy questions have precise correct answers. Wrong answers are wrong because they misrepresent the passage in specific ways. For each option, ask: “HOW is this wrong?” The answer should misattribute, oversimplify, or confuse position with example.
The Complete Guide: From Confusion to Mastery
You’ve practiced the flashcards. You’ve tested yourself. Now understand why philosophy passages feel hardâand how to systematically decode any abstract argument.
Why RC Philosophy Passages Feel Challenging
RC philosophy passages intimidate students because they deal with abstract ideas rather than concrete events. There’s nothing to visualizeâno experiments, no historical narrative, no tangible processes. Yet philosophy passages follow predictable patterns and test the same comprehension skills as other passages.
The key is recognizing that these passages are arguments about ideas, and your job is to track positions, evidence, and logical relationships.
This abstraction creates several specific challenges. First, unfamiliar terminology like “epistemology,” “ontology,” or “deontological” can intimidate readers. Second, multiple viewpoints appearâthe author’s, various philosophers’, hypothetical objectors’âand distinguishing these requires careful tracking. Third, arguments chain through multiple logical steps, requiring sustained attention.
The Core Insight: Philosophy passages are ARGUMENTS about IDEAS. Your job isn’t to understand the philosophy deeplyâit’s to track what position is being defended, what reasoning supports it, and what objections are considered. These are reading comprehension tasks, not philosophy tasks.
Pause & Reflect
Before reading further: Think about the last philosophy passage you struggled with. Was the difficulty in understanding the concepts or in tracking who believed what?
Most students think their problem is conceptual understandingâthey don’t “get” the philosophy. But when they analyze their errors, the real problem is usually viewpoint confusion.
They understand each paragraph individually but can’t figure out what the author actually believes versus what the author is merely discussing or criticizing.
Philosophy passages don’t test philosophical knowledgeâthey test your ability to track multiple viewpoints and identify the author’s position among them.
Common Structures in Philosophy Passages
Philosophy passages follow recognizable organizational patterns. Identifying the structure in paragraph 1 helps you anticipate what each section will accomplish.
Thesis-Defense Structure
The most straightforward pattern. The author states a philosophical position, provides arguments supporting it, may address counterarguments, and concludes by affirming the thesis.
Dialectical Structure (Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis)
A more complex pattern presenting opposing views and working toward reconciliation. The pattern moves through stages: First, an initial position (thesis) is presented. Then, an opposing position (antithesis) challenges it. Finally, a third position (synthesis) emerges that incorporates insights from both or transcends the opposition.
Dialectical Pattern Example:
Thesis (Para 1-2): “Free will is an illusionâall actions are causally determined by prior events.”
Antithesis (Para 3): “But we experience genuine choice, and this experience cannot be merely illusion.”
Synthesis (Para 4-5): “Actions can be both determined AND free. Freedom means acting according to one’s own desires, even if those desires are determined.”
Author typically favors: The synthesis position.
Test Your Understanding
In a dialectical passage, if paragraph 1 describes “traditional economic theory” and paragraph 3 starts with “However, recent evidence challenges this framework,” where is the author’s likely position?
The author’s position is likely in the synthesis that emerges laterânot the traditional theory (thesis) and not simply the critique (antithesis), but a third position that reconciles or transcends both.
In dialectical passages, the first position is typically setupâwhat will be challenged. The author’s actual view emerges from how they resolve the tension between opposing positions.
When you see “However” or “But” in a philosophy passage, you’re often seeing the transition from setup to the author’s actual argument. What comes AFTER the transition usually matters more than what comes before.
Tracking Whose View Is Whose
Philosophy passages present multiple viewpoints, and confusing them is the most common source of errors. The author’s view, discussed philosophers’ views, and hypothetical objectors’ views may all appear, sometimes in the same paragraph.
Sources of Viewpoints
The passage author speaks in their own voice, making claims they actually endorse.
Named philosophers are discussed: “Kant argues…” “Mill believes…” These are their views, not necessarily the author’s.
Schools of thought represent positions: “Utilitarians claim…” “Virtue ethicists hold…”
Hypothetical objectors raise challenges: “One might argue…” “Critics contend…”
Common views being challenged set up the author’s argument: “It is often assumed…”
Signal Language for Attribution:
Author’s own view: “I argue,” “This essay contends,” “The correct view is,” “We should recognize”
Others’ views: “X argues,” “According to Y,” “The traditional view holds,” “Proponents claim”
Views presented for criticism: “However,” “But this overlooks,” “This fails because,” “The problem with this view”
Strategy in Action
Consider: “Kant argues that lying is always wrong. However, this absolutism ignores the complexity of real moral situations.” Whose view is “lying is always wrong”? Does the author agree with this?
“Lying is always wrong” is Kant’s viewâsignaled by “Kant argues.”
The author does NOT agree. The word “However” signals criticism, and “this absolutism ignores” is evaluative language showing the author rejects Kant’s position.
This is exactly the “wrong philosopher” trap. A question asking “The author believes…” would have a trap option stating “lying is always wrong”âattributing Kant’s view to the author.
When a question asks “The author believes,” eliminate options representing views the author attributes to OTHERS or CRITICIZES. The author’s view is what they ENDORSE, not what they DISCUSS.
Handling Abstract Concepts and Logical Chains
Abstract terminology and extended logical arguments are hallmarks of philosophy passages. Both can be managed with systematic approaches.
Abstract Terminology
Treat unfamiliar philosophical terms the same way you treat scientific jargonâas labels whose function you track rather than concepts you need to deeply understand.
When passages use terms like “epistemological” or “ontological,” context usually clarifies their function. “The epistemological question here concerns whether perception provides knowledge” tells you epistemology relates to knowledge, even if you didn’t know that beforehand.
Tracking Logical Chains
Philosophy arguments often chain multiple steps: If A, then B. If B, then C. A is true. Therefore C.
The strategy is to map the chain explicitly: identify premises (starting assumptions), track intermediate conclusions (steps along the way), and note the final conclusion (what’s ultimately claimed).
Logical Chain Mapping:
“If consciousness requires subjective experience (Premise 1), and computers lack subjective experience (Premise 2), then computers cannot be conscious (Conclusion).”
Map: (Consciousness requires experience) + (Computers lack experience) â (Computers can’t be conscious)
Questions might ask: What premise does this depend on? What would weaken this argument? What follows from this reasoning?
Reality Check
Be honest: When you encounter an unfamiliar philosophical term, do you stop and worry or do you keep reading for context?
Most students stop and worry. 99+ percentilers keep reading for context.
Here’s the key insight: Questions test passage comprehension, not philosophical background knowledge. The passage will show you how terms function in the argument. You don’t need external knowledgeâyou need to track what the passage says.
When you stop at unfamiliar terms, you lose reading momentum and miss the contextual clues that would clarify meaning.
Treat philosophical terms like variables in math. You don’t need to know what “x” means to solve for itâyou track how it functions in the equation. Same with “epistemological” or “deontological.”
The “Wrong Philosopher” Trap and Other Pitfalls
Philosophy passages contain traps that exploit the complexity of tracking multiple viewpoints and qualified positions.
Trap 1: Wrong Philosopher Attribution
The most common trap in philosophy passages. Answer options attribute a view to the wrong sourceâclaiming the author believes something that a discussed philosopher believes, or vice versa.
Defense: Track who holds each view and how the author responds to it. The author’s view is what they ENDORSE, not what they DISCUSS.
Trap 2: Objection as Position
Answer options state an objection as if it were the author’s view. Philosophy passages often raise objections specifically to answer themâthe objection is not the author’s position.
Defense: Track the objection-reply structure. What’s the objection? How does the author respond? The author’s view emerges from the REPLY, not the objection.
Trap 3: Oversimplification
Answer options lose crucial qualifications, stating positions more absolutely than the passage does.
Oversimplification Example:
Passage: “While lying is generally wrong, certain extreme circumstances may justify deception when the consequences of truth-telling are sufficiently severe.”
Oversimplified trap: “Lying is wrong”
Also oversimplified: “Lying is acceptable when consequences are bad”
Correct: “Lying is generally wrong but may be justified in extreme circumstances”
Philosophy passages are often about nuance. Simple, absolute answers are frequently traps.
Time-Efficient Strategy for Philosophy Passages
Philosophy passages should take the same time as other passagesâabout 8-10 minutes total. The strategy emphasizes structural tracking over deep comprehension.
First Read (3-4 minutes)
Identify the main philosophical question being addressed. Note the structure: Is this thesis-defense, dialectical, problem-analysis, or critique? Track whose view each claim represents. Mark logical connectorsâ”therefore,” “however,” “thus”âthese signal argument structure.
Quick Summary (30 seconds)
After reading, explicitly state: What’s the main question? What’s the author’s position (or conclusion)? What key opposing views appear?
Question Answering (4-5 minutes)
For viewpoint questions, verify attribution carefully. Return to the passage to confirm who believes what. For inference questions, follow the logical chain. For purpose questions, identify structural function.
Final Self-Assessment
After reading this entire guide, can you now explain the difference between the author discussing a view and the author holding a view?
If you can explain it clearly, you’ve internalized the concept. If you’re still fuzzy, that’s your signal to review the flashcards.
Here’s a simple explanation you should be able to give:
“When the author discusses a view, they’re presenting someone else’s positionâoften to analyze, compare, or criticize it. When the author holds a view, they’re expressing their own positionâwhat they actually believe and want you to understand as the passage’s main argument.”
Philosophy passages test argument comprehension, not philosophical knowledge. You’re tracking positions, evidence, and logical connections. Whether you deeply understand the philosophy is irrelevant to answering questions correctly.
Ready to test your understanding? The 20 flashcards above cover every nuance of philosophy passage strategies, and the practice exercise gives you real CAT-style questions to apply these skills.
Continue Your RC Mastery
Explore related decks to build comprehensive RC skills:
- RC Science & Technology Passages – Handle technical terminology and experimental structures
- RC Economics & Business Passages – Navigate data-driven arguments and market analysis
- RC Inference Questions – Master logical reasoning for abstract arguments
- RC Function & Structure Questions – Understand why authors present views in specific sequences
â Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about RC philosophy and abstract passages answered
Philosophy and abstract passages appear in approximately 30-40% of CAT RC sections. In a typical exam with 4-5 RC passages, you can expect 1-2 passages dealing with philosophical arguments, ethical theories, abstract conceptual analysis, or theoretical discussions.
These passages often have lower accuracy rates than narrative or descriptive passagesânot because they’re inherently harder, but because students approach them without appropriate strategies. The abstraction creates anxiety, and students lose track of whose view is whose amid multiple philosophers and positions.
The key is explicit attribution for every significant claim. When you encounter a statement, immediately ask: WHO believes this? Is this the author? A philosopher being discussed? An objector?
Create mental categories:
- Author’s view (what the passage defends)
- Philosopher X’s view (what X is said to believe)
- Philosopher Y’s view (what Y is said to believe)
- Objector’s view (what critics or opponents claim)
- Common view being challenged (what “people generally think”)
Watch for signal language:
- Author’s own position: “I argue,” “This essay contends,” “We should recognize that”
- Others’ positions: “X argues,” “According to Y,” “The traditional position holds”
- Views being criticized: “However, this overlooks,” “But this fails because”
Treat philosophical terms the same way you treat scientific jargonâas labels whose function you track rather than concepts you need to deeply understand.
Common terms to recognize:
- Epistemology: Concerns knowledge (how we know things)
- Ontology: Concerns existence (what things are)
- Ethics: Concerns right and wrong
- Metaphysics: Concerns fundamental reality
- Aesthetics: Concerns beauty and art
When passages use unfamiliar terms, context usually clarifies their function. “The epistemological problem here is whether we can trust perception” tells you epistemology relates to knowledge and certainty.
Spend the same time as on other passagesâapproximately 8-10 minutes total (3-4 minutes reading, 4-5 minutes answering questions). Philosophy passages don’t inherently require more time; they require different attention allocation.
Where to invest reading time:
- First paragraph: Identify the main question being addressed
- Viewpoint transitions: Note when the passage shifts from one philosopher’s view to another’s
- Evaluative language: Mark where the author signals agreement or disagreement
- Logical connectors: Track “therefore,” “however,” “thus” as structural markers
Where NOT to invest time:
- Fully understanding every abstract concept (track function, not deep meaning)
- Memorizing every step of thought experiments (understand their purpose)
- Grasping historical context of philosophers mentioned (irrelevant to questions)
This distinction is crucial and drives most errors on philosophy passage questions.
Views the author DISCUSSES: Positions attributed to other philosophers, traditions, or hypothetical voices. The author presents these to analyze, critique, compare, or build upon them.
The author’s OWN VIEW: The position the author actually endorses, defends, or argues for. This emerges from how the author evaluates the views they discuss.
How to distinguish:
The author’s view typically:
- Survives objections (objections are raised and answered)
- Gets most development and space
- Appears in the conclusion as affirmed
- Is marked by evaluative language (“correctly,” “rightly,” “the better view”)
Discussed views typically:
- Are introduced with attribution (“X argues,” “According to Y”)
- May be criticized or qualified
- Serve as contrast or background for the author’s position
Thought experiments are imagined scenarios designed to test intuitions or reveal implications of philosophical positions. They’re tools for argument, not the argument itself.
Reading strategy: When you encounter a thought experiment, ask: What philosophical point does this scenario serve?
Don’t get lost in scenario details. A thought experiment about switching trolley tracks isn’t really about trainsâit’s about whether intentions matter, whether numbers of lives affected matter, or whether there’s a moral difference between killing and letting die.
Common functions:
- Testing intuitions: “Would we say X in this case?” (Our answer reveals something)
- Revealing implications: “If we accept Y, we must accept Z in this scenario”
- Creating counterexamples: “Here’s a case where the theory gives the wrong answer”
Improving philosophy passage accuracy requires systematic practice in viewpoint tracking and argument structure recognition.
Week 1-2: Build viewpoint tracking skills
For 10 philosophy passages, explicitly map every viewpoint: Who holds each major position? How does the author respond to each? What is the author’s own view? Write these down. When you miss questions, check whether the error came from misattributing a view.
Week 3-4: Practice structure recognition
For 10 passages, identify the structure type (thesis-defense, dialectical, problem-analysis, critique) in paragraph 1. Note how each subsequent section functions within that structure.
Week 5-6: Focus on trap recognition
For 10 passages, explicitly identify why wrong answers are wrong: Wrong philosopher attribution? Objection stated as author’s view? Oversimplification losing qualifications? Example confused with position?
Week 7-8: Timed practice
Set strict 8-10 minute limits. Practice maintaining viewpoint tracking and structure awareness under time pressure.
After reading a philosophy passage, write down:
1. The main question being addressed
2. Position 1 (and who holds it)
3. Position 2 (and who holds it)
4. The author’s own position
5. How the author evaluates each position
Do this for 20 passages. Your viewpoint tracking will become automatic. The improvement curve is steepâstudents typically see 25-30% accuracy improvement within 4-6 weeks.
Connect with Prashant
Founder, WordPandit & EDGE | CAT VARC Expert
With 18+ years of teaching experience and thousands of successful CAT aspirants, I’m here to help you master VARC. Whether you’re stuck on RC passages, vocabulary building, or exam strategyâlet’s connect and solve it together.
Stuck on RC or VARC? Let’s Solve It Together! đĄ
Don’t let doubts slow you down. Whether it’s a tricky RC passage, vocabulary confusion, or exam strategyâI’m here to help. Choose your preferred way to connect and let’s tackle your challenges head-on.
đ Explore The Learning Inc. Network
8 specialized platforms. 1 mission: Your success in competitive exams.
Trusted by 50,000+ learners across India
Learn.WordPandit
Learn With Prashant Sir
Mentor-led courses for CAT, GMAT, GRE, GD/PI/WAT. Structured learning with expert guidance.
WordPandit
Master Words. Master Exams.
10,000+ words with roots methodology. Your vocabulary foundation for competitive exams.
Preplite
Smart Learning. Smaller Budgets.
Affordable self-prep micro-courses. Pay only for what you need. Learn at your pace.
Readlite
Read Smart. Comprehend Better.
Daily curated articles across 60+ subjects. Build reading comprehension for RC mastery.
Easy Hinglish
English Seekhna Ab Hua Aasan!
Learn English the Indian way. Vocabulary explained in Hindi and English for better retention.
GD PI WAT
Ace Your MBA Interviews.
1,000+ GD topics, PI questions, and WAT guidance. Complete MBA admission prep.
GK365
Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.
Daily GK updates and current affairs. Never miss what matters for competitive exams.
Ask English Pro
Your Personal English Mentor.
Get expert answers to all your English questions with detailed video explanations.