DESARROLLO EMOCIONAL

Now, the author never explicitly expresses an opinion about Trump. However, if you read closely, you can answer this question by matching up each option with evidence from the text.

Consider A: She finds Trump’s comments laudable and important.

Even if you don’t know that “laudable” means “worthy of praise,” you can figure out that important is a positive thing. Comb over the text. Is there any mention that the author finds Trump’s contribution important, other than the fact that she is mentioning him? There’s no evidence of this. In fact, all of the

words that she uses to describe Trump’s contributions are NEGATIVE – she calls him “noisy” and says he is demonstrating “hysteria,” neither of which are

positive words. Go ahead and cross out Option A.

Now, Option B – Again, look at these words: “irrelevant and pointless.” Both are

negative, which matches with the negative tone the author uses to describe Trump’s comments. But is there any evidence that she finds Trump “irrelevant”? Surely if he was “pointless,” the author wouldn’t mention him at all. Nor would she say that “Trump’s comments suggest… a kind of hysteria… reminiscent of the infectious disease panic… in 1924… that famously led to the frantic firing of thousands of Latino workers and destruction of homes in low-income Latino neighborhoods.” In fact, Trump’s comments are the opposite of “irrelevant” – if panics like his have led to people being fired and homes being destroyed, then clearly words like his have some resonance, even if they are a negative rather than a positive part of this national conversation.

Clearly, Option B can’t be correct.

Check out Option C and try to find evidence for the fact that the author is distrustful of Trump’s comments. True, the word “distrustful” shows up in the passage… although the passage suggests that it is Trump who is distrustful of

authorities, not the author. True, the author seems like she does not agree with Trump, calling him “noisy” and “hysterical” and subtly suggesting that his comments could lead to widespread panic, firing, and destruction of homes. So this might be a good answer – there is some evidence here.

Let’s consider Option D and see if there is more or better evidence: The author is

“subtly disdainful” – i.e. she has a negative impression of Trump’s comments. Clearly, by describing Trump as “noisy,” “hysterical,” and “having an attitude

“reminiscent of widespread panics that led to firings and destructions of homes,” the author is demonstrating a disdain of Trump.

So it’s between C and D. Which word better describes the author’s attitude? Is there evidence that she doesn’t trust Trump, or is there more evidence that she

thinks negatively of him?

While C may be a possible answer, D is a better answer because there is moreevidence for it. Which brings us to Strategy #3 for Determining Implicit Meanings:

When in doubt, go with the option that has more evidence.

---

Let’s try one more example from the same article:

At the same time, a good deal of the coverage of the Ebola crisis in West Africa has focused on the “irrationality” and “ignorance” of West Africans, choosing to visit traditional healers instead of doctors and ignoring warnings from health officials that traditional burial rituals can hasten the spread of the disease. Indeed, this “lack of faith in Western medicine” is now being addressed by local and foreign health officials who are running educational programs in places like Liberia and Sierra Leone in order to ensure that the people exposed to the illness have the correct scientific information.

But while certain cultural practices and lack of education have certainly played a role in the rapid spread of Ebola in West Africa, the amount of attention we have paid to the “ignorance” and “irrationality” of people living in these developing countries has not been balanced with an equal amount of attention to our own developed nations’ manifestations of similar irrational health beliefs. Are we really that much more knowledgeable and rational than our West African counterparts, or do our irrationalities and psychological missteps simply take different cultural forms? And do our ignorance levels and irrationalities have the potential to be just as dangerous to our health as seeking out a local healer instead of a trained healthcare professional in response to a life-threatening viral illness?

Remember, annotate and translate anything that sticks out to you:

At the same time, a good deal of the coverage of the Ebola crisis in West Africa has focused on the “irrationality” and “ignorance” of West Africans, choosing to visit traditional healers instead of doctors and ignoring warnings from health officials that traditional burial rituals can hasten the spread of the disease. Indeed, this “lack of faith in Western medicine” is now being

addressed by local and foreign health officials who are running educational programs in places like Liberia and Sierra Leone in order to ensure that the people exposed to the illness have the correct scientific information.

But while certain cultural practices and lack of education have certainly played a role in the rapid spread of Ebola in West Africa, the amount of attention we have paid to the “ignorance” and “irrationality” of people living in these developing countries has not been balanced with an equal amount of attention to our own developed nations’ manifestations of similar irrational health beliefs. Are we really that much more knowledgeable and rational than our West African counterparts, or do our irrationalities and psychological missteps simply take different cultural forms? And do our ignorance levels and irrationalities have the potential to be just as dangerous to our health as seeking out a local healer instead of a trained healthcare professional in

response to a life-threatening viral illness?

As you can see, I bolded a lot of information – all because it stood out to me in some way. The words in quotes hold a lot of interest – clearly, the author is trying to communicate that SOMEONE believes that West Africans are “irrational” and “ignorant,” but by putting the words in quotes, she is

demonstrating distance from that opinion. I also bolded “now being addressed” because this “lack of faith in Western medicine” is clearly important enough that local AND foreign health officials feel the need to address it.

Next, I bolded parts of the first sentence of the next paragraph, paying special attention to those words “but while” – transition words like BUT, HOWEVER, WHILE, and YET (among others) always demonstrate a shift in thinking or a

contradiction, and I wanted to be prepared to answer a question about this shift in thinking.

In translation, the author is saying “There has been some ignorance in West Africa, which helps spread Ebola, but we (meaning, Americans) have not paid attention to our own ignorance.” Now the purpose of the article shifts slightly to OUR ignorance and irrationalities, rather than West African ignorance and irrationalities. She finished by saying that OUR ignorance levels can be “dangerous to our health.”

See if you can use our strategies (read closely, annotate, find evidence) to answer the following question:

Based on the passage, the author would most likely agree with which of the following aphorisms?

A. Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched.