Primary Purpose
Transcript
This video is about the primary purpose of the passage or, why did the author write the passage?
That's essentially the question and what primary purpose means. So let's take a look here at this part that I've exerted from the entire passage.
现在，我能够回家的原因是因为主要目的通常位于两个地方。
It's a combination of what you see in the first paragraph, which is often to give you context. 然后最重要的是你在最后一段中找到了什么。这可能会在最后一段结束时来到。 什么是驾驶的一切？所以我们阅读了第一段我在这里没有摘要但是 基本上说我们很久所知道的大脑是塑料，但它比我们所想到的更塑料。
所以，我们在最后一段结束时获得这个部分。为了证实这种关于可塑性的索赔，研究人员必须证明 more convincingly the relationship between the ability of existing human OD to replace old OD and the speed of myelin generation. Moreover, scientists need to show that myelin regeneration is not the only significant factor to contribute to brain plasticity.
换句话说，主要目的是评估研究，然后告诉我们他们在正确的轨道上，但更多需要完成。 So to discuss possible findings and ways in which those findings can be made more valid. Now it's really important that I come up with the primary purpose in my own words. The reason it's important is the answer choices are crafted in 这样他们很容易歪曲我们的思想。
I oftentimes say don't let the answer choices do the thinking for you. Nowhere is this more true it seems than the primary purpose questions. In which the answer choices are usually pretty vague, where all of a sudden you begin to misinterpret the passage if you read the answer choices without first 用你自己的话语段落的点。但我们这样做了。
所以，希望我们能在警卫上。现在，在我们去那里之前，我想迅速审查四件事要寻找 以错误的答案类型为主要目的。一个是答案选择可能太普遍或模糊，就是它 discusses the topic, but then has stuff that is so unrelated or vague. That it's not specific enough to actually tell us 为什么作者首先写了这段经文。
Just as something can be too general it can be too specific. Sometimes great trap answers on primary purpose questions are those that 是只有一个段落的良好主要目的或摘要。所以要小心不要选择太具体或者的东西 summarizes only one of the three paragraphs of a long passage. Next we have that mentions something that isn't in the passage.
This is one that usually isn't as tricky because it brings in information that wasn't even mentioned. 最后，腐烂的地方是一个错误的答案选择，我们已经过去的是普遍的主要目的。 Where everything looks like it's going fine and then they throw in a word or two towards the end that derails everything and makes the answer choice invalid.
So let's take a look here at the primary purpose of the passage followed by five answer choices starting with A. Discuss a new line of research and ways that it can improve our understanding of the way in which the brain functions. 我有点像这样，这个新的研究线路，当然，关于大脑如何更加塑料，而不是我们想象的。
但是让我们在警卫。让我们不要试着说，哦，我喜欢这个关于答案选择， 因此它是正确的。穿上我们的分析帽子 see if we could find what's weak or rotten in this answer choice. Ways that it can improve our understanding of the way in which the brain functions.
Well, that's a little bit too high level. It's probably better in terms of our understanding of the way that myelin regeneration works. And more than that, 如果这些研究人员在正确的赛道上，这是关于想到的。目的是说他们是，但他们需要做更多。
And so this, ways it can improve our understanding of the way in which the brain functions, totally misses the point that it evaluated research and figured out or discussed ways that research could be improved. So it is simply too general, too vague towards the end there. B, question the results of the findings of a study by pointing out several oversights on the parts of researchers.
Now, does he question the results of the finding? Sort of, he says they need to go a little bit further. 但这些所谓的监督是什么？它在该段落中提到了这些监督吗？ Now you may think, well it doesn't but there must have been some oversights because he doesn't agree with them.
但他的目的是展示或告诉我们这些研究人员应该在未来做些什么，使他们的发现更有效。 但他实际上并没有指出特定的监督。C，评估研究结果并讨论这些发现有缺陷的方式。 Does he evaluate research findings? Yes.
当你到达那里时，你是否停止阅读？不，你继续阅读。 Discuss ways in which these findings are flawed. Now to say something is flawed is to say it is wrong. 然而，他或她，该段落的作者表示，调查结果是暂定的，需要做更多的工作。
That is not the same as flawed. Therefore we go on to a different answer choice. Because we found that rotten spot, that word flaw. That one word that undid everything. Next discuss a theory and offer up several reservations about the validity of that theory.
他们讨论了一个理论吗？或多或少地，大脑比我们想象的更塑料。 然后，他是否提供了关于该理论的几个保留？是。 About ways that it can be improved. Now, this doesn't perfectly match up with our answer choice that we 想到原来，但这并不完美。
你会在主要目的上发现这一点，这不会完全是你在思考甚至接近的东西。 It's going to be slightly different, but if it's not wrong, it is often times the best answer. 所以让我们看看E.比D好吗？
Propose a theory in regards to how the brain is able to grow and regenerate after trauma. Now, this able to grow and regenerate after trauma is very specific to the third paragraph. 它更加关于大脑的可塑性。当然，你可以争论大脑的可塑性， overlaps a lot of that regeneration after trauma.
But wait a second. Propose a theory? 他实际上评估了一个理论，他没有提出一个理论。因此，它使与实际做的人进行评估 这个调查。那么，猜猜是什么？
Therefore D is our answer. And you have to be agile like that and 没有摆脱蝙蝠的某些权利，因为它并不完全起作用。我们再次寻找最好的答案。 And that's what often times happen in primary purpose questions is you will have to find the answer that is best and the one of course the matches your answer of what the primary purpose was
Read full transcript
It's a combination of what you see in the first paragraph, which is often to give you context. 然后最重要的是你在最后一段中找到了什么。这可能会在最后一段结束时来到。 什么是驾驶的一切？所以我们阅读了第一段我在这里没有摘要但是 基本上说我们很久所知道的大脑是塑料，但它比我们所想到的更塑料。
所以，我们在最后一段结束时获得这个部分。为了证实这种关于可塑性的索赔，研究人员必须证明 more convincingly the relationship between the ability of existing human OD to replace old OD and the speed of myelin generation. Moreover, scientists need to show that myelin regeneration is not the only significant factor to contribute to brain plasticity.
换句话说，主要目的是评估研究，然后告诉我们他们在正确的轨道上，但更多需要完成。 So to discuss possible findings and ways in which those findings can be made more valid. Now it's really important that I come up with the primary purpose in my own words. The reason it's important is the answer choices are crafted in 这样他们很容易歪曲我们的思想。
I oftentimes say don't let the answer choices do the thinking for you. Nowhere is this more true it seems than the primary purpose questions. In which the answer choices are usually pretty vague, where all of a sudden you begin to misinterpret the passage if you read the answer choices without first 用你自己的话语段落的点。但我们这样做了。
所以，希望我们能在警卫上。现在，在我们去那里之前，我想迅速审查四件事要寻找 以错误的答案类型为主要目的。一个是答案选择可能太普遍或模糊，就是它 discusses the topic, but then has stuff that is so unrelated or vague. That it's not specific enough to actually tell us 为什么作者首先写了这段经文。
Just as something can be too general it can be too specific. Sometimes great trap answers on primary purpose questions are those that 是只有一个段落的良好主要目的或摘要。所以要小心不要选择太具体或者的东西 summarizes only one of the three paragraphs of a long passage. Next we have that mentions something that isn't in the passage.
This is one that usually isn't as tricky because it brings in information that wasn't even mentioned. 最后，腐烂的地方是一个错误的答案选择，我们已经过去的是普遍的主要目的。 Where everything looks like it's going fine and then they throw in a word or two towards the end that derails everything and makes the answer choice invalid.
So let's take a look here at the primary purpose of the passage followed by five answer choices starting with A. Discuss a new line of research and ways that it can improve our understanding of the way in which the brain functions. 我有点像这样，这个新的研究线路，当然，关于大脑如何更加塑料，而不是我们想象的。
但是让我们在警卫。让我们不要试着说，哦，我喜欢这个关于答案选择， 因此它是正确的。穿上我们的分析帽子 see if we could find what's weak or rotten in this answer choice. Ways that it can improve our understanding of the way in which the brain functions.
Well, that's a little bit too high level. It's probably better in terms of our understanding of the way that myelin regeneration works. And more than that, 如果这些研究人员在正确的赛道上，这是关于想到的。目的是说他们是，但他们需要做更多。
And so this, ways it can improve our understanding of the way in which the brain functions, totally misses the point that it evaluated research and figured out or discussed ways that research could be improved. So it is simply too general, too vague towards the end there. B, question the results of the findings of a study by pointing out several oversights on the parts of researchers.
Now, does he question the results of the finding? Sort of, he says they need to go a little bit further. 但这些所谓的监督是什么？它在该段落中提到了这些监督吗？ Now you may think, well it doesn't but there must have been some oversights because he doesn't agree with them.
但他的目的是展示或告诉我们这些研究人员应该在未来做些什么，使他们的发现更有效。 但他实际上并没有指出特定的监督。C，评估研究结果并讨论这些发现有缺陷的方式。 Does he evaluate research findings? Yes.
当你到达那里时，你是否停止阅读？不，你继续阅读。 Discuss ways in which these findings are flawed. Now to say something is flawed is to say it is wrong. 然而，他或她，该段落的作者表示，调查结果是暂定的，需要做更多的工作。
That is not the same as flawed. Therefore we go on to a different answer choice. Because we found that rotten spot, that word flaw. That one word that undid everything. Next discuss a theory and offer up several reservations about the validity of that theory.
他们讨论了一个理论吗？或多或少地，大脑比我们想象的更塑料。 然后，他是否提供了关于该理论的几个保留？是。 About ways that it can be improved. Now, this doesn't perfectly match up with our answer choice that we 想到原来，但这并不完美。
你会在主要目的上发现这一点，这不会完全是你在思考甚至接近的东西。 It's going to be slightly different, but if it's not wrong, it is often times the best answer. 所以让我们看看E.比D好吗？
Propose a theory in regards to how the brain is able to grow and regenerate after trauma. Now, this able to grow and regenerate after trauma is very specific to the third paragraph. 它更加关于大脑的可塑性。当然，你可以争论大脑的可塑性， overlaps a lot of that regeneration after trauma.
But wait a second. Propose a theory? 他实际上评估了一个理论，他没有提出一个理论。因此，它使与实际做的人进行评估 这个调查。那么，猜猜是什么？
Therefore D is our answer. And you have to be agile like that and 没有摆脱蝙蝠的某些权利，因为它并不完全起作用。我们再次寻找最好的答案。 And that's what often times happen in primary purpose questions is you will have to find the answer that is best and the one of course the matches your answer of what the primary purpose was
