In this video, we're gonna answer an evidence-based question that is not paired. And before we start answering this specific question, I kind of wanted to give you a strategy of approaching evidence-based questions in general, what your job is and what your assignment is.

It's the most SAT - like question because it's the most objective type of question they can ask you. What is your job is, is to find words of the author that support a specific statement that was made in the question.

So if the question is asking you, which of the following line references support the statement that "dogs eat carrots," then in the words of the author, you should probably look for dogs that eat carrots.

In the words of the author, you may not find the word dogs. The author may be writing a natural science passage and he may, he or she may refer to them as Canines.

The author may never say eat. He may say that canines' diet includes or dietary regiment or something like that includes the other may not refer to carrots as carrots.

It can say colorful root vegetables. But this is your job. You can find a sentence that says "root vegetables compliment canines' diet."

And that would be a sentence that is backing up or supporting the statement that dogs eat carrots. So here's the process.

If you wanted like a process. I recommend first when I see an unpaired evidence-based question, I first obsess over the question.

I try to read the question and try to understand what is it that I'm looking to support. I even go as far as making a list of three things that must be present in the quote.

So in the example that I gave you before dogs eat carrots, I made a list of

1. dogs
2. eating
3. carrots

In this question, it's going to be a lot more complicated, and yet we can narrow it down to a list of three things.

And then when I'm looking at each and every line reference, I just run my line references through that list. Does this line reference include number one, number two, number three?

And I am going to expect that in the line reference answer choices, I'm going to have an example where I'm going to have a confused relationship. So for example, there could be, carrots constitute a large chunk of the feline, diet. Canine and feline, big difference. Or, I'm going to see maybe "canines hate carrots."

They dislike carrots. So either it's going to be something like one of the things in the list is going to be replaced by another, or there's going to be reversed relationship.

One of the answer choices is going to be barely relevant. And the fourth one is going to be 100% correct.

So I want to do this together. Let's go. We are reading this. And here's what we're seeing, which choice best supports the claim that developing crops.

This is my first thing, right? Number one is going to be developing crops. Let's make a list together. So number one, developing Crops.

That are resistant to more than one herbicide.

So developing crops that are resistant and just make R, can promote the evolution of weeds that are resistant to more homicides.

So developing crops promote the evolution, Okay. The evolution of what the evolution of weeds That are resistant. So this is my list

This is my first thing, right? Number one is going to be developing prompts. Let's make a list together. So number one, developing Crops here That are resistant to more than one herbicide.

So developing crops that are resistant and just make are, can promote the evolution of weeds that are resistant to more homicides.

So

1. developing crops
2. promote the evolution ... Okay. The evolution of what?
3. the evolution of weeds that are resistant.

So this is my list.

I need to find a line reference that has all of these three components. Let's take a look. My first line reference is 57 to 60.

Let's go do that. So when I'm looking at 57 and 60, does it have all of the components?

"some researchers have argued that weeds could be foiled by " do we know what the verb to foil means? it means to prevent some success from happening

a foil could be that like aluminum paper, thin paper

but to foil something means to prevent the success; to thwart and to hinder.

So some weeds could be foiled too. They could be hindered by combining two resistance genes in one plant so that farmers could apply two herbicides at once.

Well, they do mention some of the words like herbicides and weeds, but it does not have all of the components because what we need to find proof for is that crops can promote the evolution of weeds and then crops that are resistant to herbicides can promote the evolution of weeds that are resistant, but it doesn't have most of the things. It talks about weeds.

And that talks about how they could be prevented from, by combining the resistance and then farmers could apply to no, absolutely not.

This is, um, using the words from the question, but not communicating the same thing. Let's take a look at 62 to 65

David David, More since then, Or reject these claims.

So this is very important just for general reading advice. Whenever we see these that's a pronoun and pronoun's job is to point.

So these claims, you've got to make sure that you know, what the claims are and what you do is you just go up earlier in the passage.

These claims the claims that, um, if you could, if you could add the resistance to two types of herbicides, um, uh, then it's unlikely for the Kemp for the, for the weeds to survive.

So this gentleman, he rejects these claims, he notes that some weeds are already resistant, to this. And others are to that.

Does that meet our list? No, it's not talking about how crops that are resistant, promote the evolution of the weeds that are resistant. Nope, barely relevant.

69 to 75( spraying ... weeds) It definitely has the word Weeds, but what about the crops? "spraying with one chemical can drive the evolution of an all-purpose stress response system, which can defend the weed against other chemicals."

Spraying with one chemical can drive the evolution. Hahaha, promote the evolution of an all-purpose response system, which can defend the weed against other chemicals.

Interesting, spraying with one chemical, what is being sprayed? If we look before the team of French and American weed scientists present another reason to worry about these new crops are being mentioned in the sentence before and spraying with one chemical, what is being sprayed?

The crops! there you have it. You have the developing crops. You have, you have the word evolution spraying with one chemical can drive the evolution of old purpose stress response system, which can defend the weed against other chemicals.

In here, we have the weeds, all three. I am highly suspicious of answer choice C and now D 76 to 81.

(I am ...toxins). "I'm quite certain that this is a short-lived situation. Dr. Morton Mortenson and his colleagues are investigating patrolling weeds by planting crops like winter, right?"

That could kill weeds by blocking sunlight and releasing toxins. "He says that this is a short-lived solution. They're investigating controlling weeds by planting crops like winter rye that could kill weeds by blocking sunlight

It does not talk about promoting evolution. It's not talking about how developing crops that are resistant, can promote the evolution of weeds that are resistant.

It's not D. It's definitely C. I hope this helps you guys.