This section will apply the DIRECT Method to a CLT Historical Profile passage. Let’s begin with a review of the method. What does the “D” stand for? Why is this important? Test yourself and then check out the spoiler below.
The “D” stands for “Don’t read the passage first.” Unlike the Verbal Reasoning section, where you should read the passage before considering the questions, the Grammar/Writing section contains passages that, by definition, are full of errors needing correction. Reading the passage could lead to significant confusion; it’s better to let the underlined portions point you to where to read and then gather the information you need from the context.
The Historical Profile passage is more likely to contain more modern, accessible language than some other passages. Even if the subject of the passage may be an ancient figure like Homer or Aristotle, the writer is often a more recent figure. The writing is factual rather than narrative and summarizes key information.
In this section, you’ll find the entry for “Karl Marx" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. After each paragraph, you’ll find questions tied to the underlined portions in the paragraph. This format does not exactly mimic the format of the CLT, where the entire passage appears on the left and the questions on the right, so be sure to practice with official CLT materials as well.
1. how
A. NO CHANGE
B. for
C. whether
D. that
The answer is D. This sentence structure question concerns a subordinate clause: a statement with subject and verb typically introduced by a word like “which” or “that”. A subordinate clause is not the main part of the sentence, but rather modifies it in some way. We have to look at the logical movement of the sentence, and especially the word “argue” right before our underlined word. It would be unusual to have the phrasing “argue how …” or “argue whether …” so choices A and C seem unlikely. You can certainly “argue for” something, but in that case, the object needs to occur next, as in the phrase “argue for a new approach.” This is not what we see here; rather, the word “if” starts yet another dependent clause indicating, in conditional fashion, what Marx is arguing. With another full clause beginning, we need the phrase “argue that” to lay the foundation for that clause. Once “argue that” is in place, the rest of the sentence follows with an “if … then” structure that could stand on its own if it were included as a separate sentence. This makes sense with “argue that”; following such phrasing, an entire suggestion or proposition makes sense.
If you need to convince yourself of this, imagine starting a sentence, “I would argue that …” and then finishing the sentence with anything that comes to mind. You’ll find that you are always including an entire statement or proposition after “argue that”.
2. reducible
A. NO CHANGE
B. reciprocated
C. referred
D. relegated
The answer is A. Word choice questions demand that we pay attention to the context. The language is a bit challenging here, but one element is the phrase “to which”. Looking back further, we find that there is a “third thing” and two other things that somehow relate to that third thing. Rearranging the phrasing, we can summarize the idea as follows: Two things are _____ to a third thing. This helps us see that we need a word we can use with the preposition “to” as well as one that describes the relationship between the “two things” on the one hand and the “third thing” on the other. It would be awkward to say “reciprocated to”; the preposition doesn’t go well with “reciprocated”. Something can certainly be “referred to,” but does it make sense to say that two things are referred to a third thing? That doesn’t sound quite right.
So we are down to reducible and relegated. “Relegated to” is a common phrase; teams in the English Premier League, for example, can be “relegated to” lower leagues if they perform poorly. It’s hard to envision how that could work here, though; two things could be relegated to a lower level but not to a “third thing”. But two things can be reducible to a third thing if there is a way to collapse the two into the third thing or somehow summarize the two things by means of the third. It’s a difficult question, but reducible is best.
3. stage, which, is
A. NO CHANGE
B. stage, which is
C. stage: which is
D. stage; which is
The answer is B. A consideration of the sentence structure surrounding this phrase helps us identify the necessary punctuation. We go back to the Clause Test: are there multiple complete clauses here? The sentence begins with “This then motivates the second stage …”, which is a clause that could stand on its own. But all the remaining clauses and phrases, including two clauses starting with “which”, depend on this first part of the sentence. So we can rule out answer choice D because of the semicolon. We need a comma here (not a colon; in some cases, we could put a colon after the word “stage”, but not right before the word “which”); which choice between A and B does it better? Reading the original, we see too many commas; there is no need for a comma after “which”, a word introducing a new clause. Answer choice B is best.
4. The writer is thinking of including the following sentence here:
Marx claims that no previous theorist has been able adequately to explain how capitalism as a whole can make a profit.
Should the author make this addition?
A. No, because it provides a detail irrelevant to the focus of the paragraph.
B. No, because it contradicts the idea in the following sentence.
C. Yes, because it provides a transition from a discussion of capitalism to a discussion of socialism.
D. Yes, because it sets up the following sentence by posing a question the next sentence will answer.
The answer is D. In some cases, a “rhetorical strength” question like this will present you with material irrelevant to the paragraph. But in this case, the proposed addition seems relevant to the discussion of this paragraph. The sentence following the place where we could insert this sentence refers to Marx’s “solution”. Does this sentence fit well before a “solution”? Indeed it does; it speaks of something “no previous theorist has been able adequately to explain.” That language begs for a solution. This sentence is not only relevant but also clearly non-contradictory to what follows, so choices A and B are eliminated. Choice C sounds good at first with “provides a transition,” but the content here has nothing to do with socialism, even though it is talking about capitalism. There is not a transition from one topic to another. Rather, a difficult question is posed, followed by the way Marx answers it. As choice D says, this part “sets up the following sentence.”
5. labor for
A. NO CHANGE
B. labor—for
C. labor, for
D. labor) for
The answer is B. This is a tricky punctuation because, if you only read the phrase “ability to labor for the day,” it sounds as if no punctuation is necessary. But we have to pay attention to the em dash earlier in the sentence, after the phrase “labor power.” The dash there suggests that the author is going to define what is meant by “labor power.” Most naturally, the definition of this phrase is the worker’s “ability to labor,” not the worker’s “ability to labor for the day.” In other words, “labor power” is probably not limited to what the worker can do on one day. Additionally, if we look back further in the sentence, we can see what the phrase “for the day” is intended to modify; it is the length of time for which the capitalist purchases labor power. (The capitalist purchases the worker’s labor power for the day, then the next day that labor power is available for purchase again. This is what the broader context suggests.)
So if we need some punctuation here, which punctuation is best? The rule of thumb with em dashes is that one dash typically demands another to follow. (The exception is when the phrase set off by the first dash ends the sentence, so only a period is necessary.) So we need to choose the answer containing the dash. In sum, think of em dashes as functioning like parentheses, setting off material that explains or elaborates what came before in a way that the sentence could exist grammatically without the added information.
Sign up for free to take 5 quiz questions on this topic