Argumentatievraag

16 of our 268 B2 reading items, and the type that separates a reader from a translator. The stem is usually Waarom noemt de auteur X? or Welke denkfout ziet de auteur? You may understand every word of the sentence about X and still miss the mark, because the question is about the sentence's job: is it evidence, a counter-example, an objection being set up to be knocked down, or a concession. Nothing in the sentence itself announces which.

About 40 multiple-choice questions over roughly 6–7 texts in 100 minutes, computer-marked, drawn from opinion pieces and analyses rather than reports. The correct option names a function — as an example of, in order to refute, to show that the objection does not hold. The wrong options restate what the sentence literally said, or give the function a stronger form than the text supports. Because the answer is about structure, the sentence quoted in the question is almost never where the answer is: the answer is in the sentence before or after it.

Denk bijvoorbeeld aan …

An illustration of a claim just made. Its job is support, and the claim it supports is the sentence above it.

Critici stellen dat … Maar …

An objection raised by the writer in order to answer it. The position quoted is not the writer's, and the maar sentence is.

Ook toen voorspelde men … en dat gebeurde niet.

A historical parallel used to discredit a prediction. The past case is the argument, not the subject.

Weliswaar … maar …

A concession followed by the real point. The first half is granted, the second half is argued.

De redenering gaat mank omdat …

The writer naming a flaw. When a question asks about a denkfout, this is the sentence that answers it.

• Bij de introductie van de rekenmachine en het internet klonken dezelfde alarmerende voorspellingen. Ze zijn niet uitgekomen.

  ✗Om te laten zien dat leerlingen niet meer kunnen rekenen.

  Asked why the author mentions the calculator and the internet: as cases where the alarm proved wrong. The option that says the author is showing pupils can no longer do arithmetic reports a real worry from the text and answers a question about content, not about function.

• Tegenstanders vinden dat cultuur zichzelf via de markt moet bekostigen. Dat veronderstelt dat elk publiek bereid is de volledige kostprijs te betalen — en dat is nooit ergens het geval geweest.

  The denkfout is the assumption in the first sentence, not the opinion in it. Options that describe the opponents' view accurately are wrong precisely because they describe it: the question asked for the flaw the writer sees in it.

• Het effect is weliswaar aangetoond, maar alleen in een groep van dertig deelnemers.

  A concession that exists to be followed. Asked what the writer thinks of the finding, the answer is on the far side of maar, and the option built out of weliswaar is aangetoond is the trap.

• +Exception 1

  Sometimes the writer names the function outright — als voorbeeld, ter illustratie, om aan te tonen dat. When that happens the question is answered in one word and takes ten seconds. Notice it and move on rather than re-reading the paragraph to be sure.

• ✗Answering with what the sentence says instead of what it does. Every one of these questions offers at least one option that is a faithful summary of the quoted sentence, and it is wrong.
• ✗Reading an objection the writer set up as the writer's own position. Critici stellen dat introduces something about to be dismantled.
• ✗Taking the strong version. If the text uses a past case to show one prediction failed, an option saying technology is never harmful has overreached — and overreach is the standard wrong option at B2.