Part 4 Mastery: Reading for Viewpoints - CELPIP Reading Course

What Part 4 actually is

You read an opinion-style article (the author plus at least one contrasting viewpoint) and then a short reader comment you must complete using drop-down blanks. Most questions are Inference (what the author/commenters would agree with, what a sentence implies, attitude/tone), mixed with a few General Meaning items (best title, overall purpose). There are 10 items and the target time is ~13 minutes.

The Opinions Map (your core routine)

Before you touch the options, build a tiny map so you never confuse who thinks what. Spend 45–60 seconds:

Identify voices
- Author (main voice in the article)
- Other viewpoints (opponents, sceptics, supporters, stakeholders)
- Reader comment (a separate voice you’ll use for drop-downs)
Capture stance + reason
- For each voice, write: position (for/against/mixed) → why (one short reason).
Mark strength & hedges
- Hedges: may, might, could, tends to, appears, some, often
- Boosters: clearly, definitely, strong evidence, shows that
Spot contrast markers
- however, although, whereas, in contrast, on the other hand, still, even so
  These lines often contain the test’s hardest answers.

Your map might look like:
Author: support longer hours → reduces crowding
Resident A: support (parents) → after-work access
Resident B: oppose → hire staff instead
Commenter: neutral-leaning support → asks about budget

Four lenses to read every claim

When you verify an option, run these lenses so you don’t fall for “sounds right” traps:

Claim — What exactly is being asserted? (policy, cause/effect, prediction, value judgement)
Evidence — What reasons are given? (data, examples, logic)
Scope — Who/when/where? (residents vs commuters; evenings vs weekends)
Strength — Is the language cautious (may help) or absolute (will fix)?

A correct option must match all four for the same speaker.

The drop-down reply (reader comment)

You’ll complete a short comment below the article. Treat it like a spine: acknowledge → position → reason/next step.

Meaning fit: Insert each option and read the full sentence. It must not contradict the article.
Speaker fit: The commenter’s voice must stay coherent across the blanks (don’t switch from pro to anti mid-comment unless the text signals it).
Tone fit: Keep it civil and proportional to the article’s register (no slang in a formal piece).
Strength fit: If the commenter is cautious, avoid bold claims in the blank.

Question patterns you’ll see (and how to nail each)

1) “Would agree / most likely agrees”

Anchor: Your opinions map.
Method: Find the voice named in the stem; re-state their stance; eliminate options that exaggerate or shift their claim.
Trap: Assigning the author’s view to a commenter (or vice versa).

2) “Implied / suggested by the statement”

Anchor: The sentence + its context (before/after).
Method: Take one logical step, not three. Respect hedges.
Trap: Outside knowledge (“In real life…”). If it’s not traceable to the text, reject it.

3) “Author’s attitude / tone”

Anchor: Adverbs, adjectives, and hedges/boosters around the claim.
Method: Choose labels that match strength (e.g., cautiously supportive, skeptical, concerned).
Trap: Picking extreme labels (outraged, dismissive) when the language is balanced.

4) “Best title / main purpose”

Anchor: The whole article.
Method: Reject options that are too narrow (one paragraph) or that flip stance.
Trap: Glitter detail titles (names, numbers) that miss the argument.

5) “Purpose of paragraph/sentence”

Anchor: Position in the argument.
Method: Identify whether the line introduces, contrasts, concedes, gives evidence, or concludes.
Trap: Confusing a concession (“Even supporters admit…”) with a reversal.

Hedges, boosters, and stance words you must hear

Hedges (soften): may, might, could, seems, appears, tends to, in some cases, often, sometimes
Boosters (strengthen): clearly, definitely, strongly, compelling, conclusive, will, must
Stance verbs: support, oppose, favour, doubt, prefer, recommend, question, acknowledge
Concessions: although, even though, while, admittedly, granted
Misreading one hedge or booster is enough to choose the wrong option.

The three golden tests (run them on every option)

Speaker test: Who would say this? If the voice doesn’t match, eliminate.
Strength test: Does the modality and degree match the speaker’s language? (may vs will; some vs most vs all)
Scope test: Does the option keep the same group/time/place? If it widens or narrows without support, it’s wrong.

Minute-by-minute plan (~13 minutes)

0:00–1:00 → Opinions Map (voices, stance, reason, hedges/boosters, contrast markers)
1:00–7:30 → First pass: answer direct stance/structure items (agree/disagree, best title, purpose lines). Skip any that require fine inference.
7:30–11:30 → Second pass: tackle inference items and the drop-down comment (run Meaning → Speaker → Strength → Grammar for each blank).
11:30–13:00 → Final sweep: recheck any options with absolute language, ensure no blanks, and confirm the comment reads smoothly.

High-frequency traps (know them by name)

Stance swap: Option assigns the author’s view to a commenter or flips who supports what.
Over-boost: Passage says may help; option says will solve.
Scope stretch: Claim about evenings becomes “all hours”.
Strawman: Option criticizes an argument the text never makes.
Concession confusion: A sentence that admits a downside is used to claim the author opposes the policy.
New info injection: Option adds evidence not mentioned anywhere.

When you spot one of these, eliminate the option immediately—don’t try to “make it fit.”

Micro-routines for the hardest items

A) Agreement chain (for “would agree”)

Find the exact sentence where that voice states or implies their stance.
Extract the reason they give.
Eliminate any option missing that reason or changing its strength.

B) Implication glide (for “implies/suggests”)

Read the line plus the next line.
Ask: “If this is true, what is the smallest thing that follows?”
Reject options that need two or more steps or outside facts.

C) Comment drop-down sanity

Insert an option.
Read the whole sentence aloud in your head.
If tone or facts wobble, reject and try the next option.

Mini-samples (compact and realistic)

Sample 1 — Agreement
Author: “Extending library hours would reduce evening crowding at minimal cost.”
Question: The author would most likely agree that:

Correct: “Longer hours are a cost-efficient way to relieve after-work bottlenecks.”
Why: Matches stance + reason + scope (evenings).
Eliminate: “Hiring more staff is the only solution.” (over-boost, new claim)

Sample 2 — Implication
Resident B: “If the goal is service quality, training staff is more effective than spreading them thin.”
Question: This suggests that Resident B believes:

Correct: “Extending hours without more staff would hurt service quality.”
Eliminate: “Resident B supports extended hours if demand is high.” (no such condition in text)

Sample 3 — Tone
Line: “The pilot showed some promise, but the data are too limited to draw firm conclusions.”
Attitude: Cautiously optimistic (hedge + caution).

Eliminate: enthusiastic endorsement or dismissive rejection.

Sample 4 — Reader comment (drop-down)
Comment draft: “Thanks for the summary. I’m open to extended hours, [drop-down 1], and would support a short trial if costs stay within last year’s budget.”

Correct type: a clause like “as long as staffing isn’t stretched” (keeps cautious stance and cost concern).
Wrong types: “because it’s obviously the best option” (over-boost), “even if it replaces weekend services” (adds new risk not discussed).

Error clinic (fast fixes you can apply today)

Mixed up speakers → Rebuild the Opinions Map; highlight names at each claim.
Chose absolute language → Re-read hedges; if the speaker uses may/might, your option can’t use will/must.
Misread a concession → Label it: acknowledges downside but keeps stance.
Drop-down contradiction → After insertion, read the entire sentence; if it flips stance or tone, reject.
Ran out of time → Answer stance/structure items first; leave the densest inference for the second pass.

What carries forward

The same opinions-map habit powers your Answer Engineering later in the course: you’ll use it to disqualify options by speaker, strength, and scope in seconds. Keep your map small, visible, and updated as you read—the questions will start answering themselves.

#8. Part 4 Mastery: Reading for Viewpoints