First, we need to figure out what is going on.

Step 1): Start with this part of the sentence: "Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions"

You should visualize in your head 2 items:
1) "acceptable levels of risk"
2) "explosions"

So apparently there’s a "connection" between these two items…you should at least get that far. Now read on…

Step 2): "…is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead."


So you can translate this as saying that you really should use the word "explosion." It’s not fair when you use the other word "energetic disassembly" when really you should be using "explosion."

So in your head you should be thinking:

1) explosion = good
2) energetic disassemby = bad

Step 3): "…In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not."

So apparently there are some positive things associated with the word "explosion" but not associated with the other word.

Step 4): "…Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort."

AHA! Keyword "Therefore" tells you this is your conclusion sentence. Basically it’s saying you should use the word "explosion."

Step5): Now go through the answer choices:

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.

–This is exactly what STEP #3 was about—there are positives (advantages) associated with the word "explosion".—-so far (A) looks GOOD!

(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word


“explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.

- This is OPPOSITE of what is is implied. Obviously SOMEONE has been using the word "energetic disassembly" with the issue at hand and it’s been PISSING off the author. Now the author is pissed off and he/she is writing this paragraph saying that people shouldn’t be using "energetic assembly" because it’s not accurate/fair. So (B) is the opposite of what we’re looking for—NO GOOD

(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.

—This looks like a typical booby trap sentence where they say something that is common knowledge or wisdom but that is TOTALLY unrelated to the passage. –NO GOOD

(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.

- out of scope. We are not concerned with the reason of usage.

(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.

–again out of scope–we are not talking about controlled versus accidental explosion but rather the use of the word explosion versus the use of the word "energetic disassembly."


You could have looked at answer (A) and just quickly glance at the other answer choices. Seeing that most of them are not so relevant, you can just stick to your intuition that answer (A) is correct and move on!



_________________
Zeke Lee
Co-Founder, The GMATPill Study Method
http://www.gmatpill.com
98%ile GMAT in 2 weeks