PEAR Question

[bobjon1259]

Hi there,

I have a quick question regarding the difference between step 2 of the PEAR process, "evaluate," and step 4 of the PEAR process, "reassess." In MLSAT's RC book, I see that a large component of "evaluating" is determining whether what you read is support for one side, criticism against one side, a new position, or simply background information. However, I also see that an important part of "reassessing" is determining how what you read fits with your envisioned scale, but isn't this the same thing as determining whether what you read is support for one side, criticism against one side, a new position, or simply background information (in other words, "evaluating")? I'm a little lost here and can't figure out how these two steps differ substantially. Any help is greatly appreciated!

[ohthatpatrick]

I really think of PEAR as two steps:
- Pause & Evaluate
- Anticipate (& Reassess, if necessary)

Pausing to evaluate is why some people choose to take notes (I don't, but that's because I'm mentally pausing to make mental notes).

After having read a very important sentence, we are well served by taking a sec to stop, restate the meaning of that sentence, and encode it in our brains in simpler words.

f.e. Some scholars are quick to point out that the methodology used in the Mackenzie experiment is fairly comparable to that of the now derided Smithson experiment of the late 1970s'

"Okay, so Mackenzie might have some sketchy methodology".

After having read a paragraph, we are well served by taking a sec to pause and evaluate what the big idea/function of that paragraph was. If we were into taking notes, we would write down a takeaway in 10 or fewer words. I am stopping to mentally choose a takeaway and encode it in 10 or fewer words.

I'm not only concerned with the specifics - What is the actual main point of that paragraph.
I'm also concerned with the general structure - In totally abstract terms, what is this paragraph doing?

After the first paragraph, my P&E might lead me to say
SPECIFIC - prisons are terribly overcrowded and politicians need to do something
GENERAL - the author described a problem

My Anticipate would be thinking, "will the rest of the passage present the author's solution ... or will the author evaluate other's solutions?"

If the 2nd paragraph is one of those options, then after the 2nd paragraph, my P&E might lead me to say
SPECIFIC - some people: decriminalizing nonviolent drug offenses would alleviate overcrowding .. author seems hesitant
GENERAL - the author presented someone else's possible solution and pushed back against it

Here, I wouldn't need to Re-assess much, because this is one of the directions I predicted. I would further cement my Anticipation that this passage is "describing a problem, then presenting possible solutions" and Anticipate that the last paragraph would be the author's preferred solution.

Had the 2nd paragraph been more about the background of the U.S. prison system, then I might have re-assessed a bit and thought "Maybe this passage is just about describing the history of the problem, without offering solutions".

And I think your point is we're Re-Assessing based on our Evaluation. Are those really two different things or is that just the simultaneous, holistic light of comprehension?

Welcome to the challenge of trying to teach an integrated thinking process like Reading Comprehension as though it's a series of discrete steps.

What I hope you take away from PEAR is much fuzzier than a 4 step process:
- Pause whenever you need to in order to digest, simplify, prioritize the big ideas in the passage
- Always be having a meta-conversation that is trying to predict the trajectory of the author's purpose and trying to figure out the big picture functionality of each paragraph as it relates to that purpose

Hope this helps.

[bobjon1259]

I really think of PEAR as two steps:
- Pause & Evaluate
- Anticipate (& Reassess, if necessary)

Pausing to evaluate is why some people choose to take notes (I don't, but that's because I'm mentally pausing to make mental notes).

After having read a very important sentence, we are well served by taking a sec to stop, restate the meaning of that sentence, and encode it in our brains in simpler words.

f.e. Some scholars are quick to point out that the methodology used in the Mackenzie experiment is fairly comparable to that of the now derided Smithson experiment of the late 1970s'

"Okay, so Mackenzie might have some sketchy methodology".

After having read a paragraph, we are well served by taking a sec to pause and evaluate what the big idea/function of that paragraph was. If we were into taking notes, we would write down a takeaway in 10 or fewer words. I am stopping to mentally choose a takeaway and encode it in 10 or fewer words.

I'm not only concerned with the specifics - What is the actual main point of that paragraph.
I'm also concerned with the general structure - In totally abstract terms, what is this paragraph doing?

After the first paragraph, my P&E might lead me to say
SPECIFIC - prisons are terribly overcrowded and politicians need to do something
GENERAL - the author described a problem

My Anticipate would be thinking, "will the rest of the passage present the author's solution ... or will the author evaluate other's solutions?"

If the 2nd paragraph is one of those options, then after the 2nd paragraph, my P&E might lead me to say
SPECIFIC - some people: decriminalizing nonviolent drug offenses would alleviate overcrowding .. author seems hesitant
GENERAL - the author presented someone else's possible solution and pushed back against it

Here, I wouldn't need to Re-assess much, because this is one of the directions I predicted. I would further cement my Anticipation that this passage is "describing a problem, then presenting possible solutions" and Anticipate that the last paragraph would be the author's preferred solution.

Had the 2nd paragraph been more about the background of the U.S. prison system, then I might have re-assessed a bit and thought "Maybe this passage is just about describing the history of the problem, without offering solutions".

And I think you're point is we're Re-Assessing based on our Evaluation. Are those really two different things or is that just the simultaneous, holistic light of comprehension?

Welcome to the challenge of trying to teach an integrated thinking process like Reading Comprehension as though it's a series of discrete steps.

What I hope you take away from PEAR is much fuzzier than a 4 step process:
- Pause whenever you need to in order to digest, simply, prioritize the big ideas in the passage
- Always be having a meta-conversation that is trying to predict the trajectory of the author's purpose and trying to figure out the big picture functionality of each paragraph as it relates to that purpose

Hope this helps.

Thank you, Patrick!

[AlexY297]

Hello, I was wondering in the PEAR section under Anticipate section, I just realized a little indication the wifi symbol indicating more questions online. Where can I find such Anticipate Drills? Thank you, Alex

[ohthatpatrick]

I think all the online stuff is found under COURSE RESOURCES --> STRATEGY GUIDE ADDITIONAL DRILLS & SOLUTIONS

This is the RC thing you find there. If you're logged into your MPrep account, maybe the link will work for you.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/down ... lls-rc.pdf