Skimming means looking over the text quickly to try to get the main ideas. It can be good to skim the GED readings before looking at the questions, to get main ideas first. Then, when you know the questions, it’s easier to find the information you need.

To skim a reading, try reading the title, the first and last sentences of paragraphs and important words (especially capitalized names, dates, or other words that stand out.) Get as much important information as you can in a short period of time… and then ask yourself: what are the main ideas?

Scanning means looking for some specific information in the text. You can think of it like looking for a word in the dictionary. You don’t read the whole dictionary, but you find the right area and then look down the page to find the word.

You can do the same thing with GED text. Once you know the question, you know what specific information you need to find. You move your eyes quickly through the text to find key words from the question. Then, when you find them, you can slow down and read the text in that area. You’ll probably find the answer to the question!

Here, try using skimming and scanning on this practice question.

From The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency by Alexander McCall Smith:

Mma Ramotswe had a detective agency in Africa, at the foot of Kgale Hill. These were its assets: a tiny white van, two desks, two chairs, a telephone, and an old typewriter. Then there was a teapot, in which Mma Ramotswe–the only lady private detective in Botswana–brewed redbush tea. And three mugs–one for herself, one for her secretary, and one for the client. What else does a detective agency really need? Detective agencies rely on human intuition and intelligence, both of which Mma Ramotswe had in abundance. No inventory would ever include those, of course.

But there was also the view, which again could appear on no inventory. How could any such list describe what one saw when one looked out from Mma Ramotswe’s door? To the front, an acacia tree, the thorn tree which dots the wide edges of the Kalahari; the great white thorns, a warning; the olive-grey leaves, by contrast, so delicate. In its branches, in the late afternoon, or in the cool of the early morning, one might see a Go-Away Bird, or hear it, rather. And beyond the acacia, over the dusty road, the roofs of the town under a cover of trees and scrub bush; on the horizon, in a blue shimmer of heat, the hills, like improbable, overgrown termite mounds.

Everybody called her Mma Ramotswe, although if people had wanted to be formal, they would have addressed her as Mme Mma Ramotswe. This is the right thing for a person of stature, but which she had never used of herself. So it was always Mma Ramotswe, rather than Precious Ramotswe, a name which very few people employed.

She was a good detective, and a good woman. A good woman in a good country, one might say. She loved her country, Botswana, which is a place of peace, and she loved Africa, for all its trials. I am not ashamed to be called an African patriot, said Mma Ramotswe. I love all the people whom God made, but I especially know how to love the people who live in this place. They are my people, my brothers and sisters. It is my duty to help them to solve the mysteries in their lives. That is what I am called to do.

In idle moments, when there were no pressing matters to be dealt with, and when everybody seemed to be sleepy from the heat, she would sit under her acacia tree. It was a dusty place to sit, and the chickens would occasionally come and peck about her feet, but it was a place which seemed to encourage thought. It was here that Mma Ramotswe would contemplate some of the issues which, in everyday life, may so easily be pushed to one side.

What is the main character’s first name?

A) Mma

B) Kgale

C) Precious

D) Kalahari

E) Ramotswe

Here’s what I did….

1) Survey

First, I looked at the web page without reading it yet. It says “The Great Depression and World War II, 1929-1945″ at the top, so I know about what time it’s talking about. The page says “The Dust Bowl” and “Overview,” so it must tell basically what the Dust Bowl is. There’s a picture, and you can click on it to see better. it’s got some wagon wheels and a house, and it’s all sort of buried in some sand or dirt. The caption says “Results of a Dust Storm, Oklahoma, 1936.” So I’m getting the idea of where this is… Oklahoma, or sort of in the Midwest. And the year, 1936, gives me a more specific time, right in the middle of the years at the top of the page. And it talks about a dust storm, so I’m getting that “Dust Bowl” has to do with storms of dust… There’s more photographs and songs on the right. I just looked at the titles… “I’d Rather Not Be on Relief.” “Life in the Camps.” “On the Road.”

2) Question

Now, I ask some questions:

What is relief? What kinds of camps are they talking about? What caused the dust storms? What happened because of the dust storms? Did a lot of things get damaged? What exactly is the “dust bowl”? Is it a place or an event?

3) Read

I read the article next. Since it’s a web site, I took down some notes…

1930-1940.

Southwest Great Plains.

drought=no rain, no water.

Lots of people settled there to raise cattle (cows) and wheat. Plowed and planted (made farms.) What does this have to do with drought? Did the farms dry up?

“systematic destruction of prairie grasses” This is like something in science… when you hurt part of nature (an ecosystem), it changes other things. Farms destroyed grasses…then what? Did wildlife die?

Strong winds = devastating (very harmful)

Drought–1930. Land was dry, no grass, dirt blew away!!! Sky dark for days! Picture it. Covered houses.

Nineteen states = “dust bowl.” Farmers our of business, left, went west.

400,000 people left Great Plains. drought + “poor soil conservation” (not treating the soil right to keep it well for the future.)

4) Respond

Here’s what I responded to my questions:
What is relief? It doesn’t say in the article. I clicked on the link, and it’s about living with only the government help. I guess that’s what relief is… government help. Sounds terrible!

What kinds of camps are they talking about? The song helped with this on, too. People lived in camps when they couldn’t stay on their farms.

What caused the dust storms? The article talks about this. There were three things, I think. (1) bad ways of farming that killed grasses, (2) a natural period with no rain, and (3) lots of wind in the area.

What happened because of the dust storms? Farms were destroyed, people were out of work and poor. Lots of people moved west, and the government tried to help people.
Did a lot of things get damaged? Yes! Farms, mostly.

What exactly is the “dust bowl”? Is it a place or an event? It’s both a place and an event, I guess. Nineteen states in the center of the U.S. were turned into a “Dust Bowl”…really like a bowl of dust, where there were all kinds of dust storms… because of drought and how farmers treated the land.

5) Review

I looked back over it. I guess I want to know more about what life was like. Also, there’s a quote from a book about the dust bowl, and I wonder about that book by Steinbeck. Does it tell more about what happened to the people? Also, maybe I should look at all the pictures now that I understand more about what happened.

6) Reflect

I think it’s very sad that this happened. Farmers probably didn’t know that they were hurting the soil by killing so many of the grasses. In a way, it’s kind of like global warming, isn’t it? People start doing something and then they don’t realize it’s hurting the world until something bad happens. Then, it causes lots of problems!

So, did this help you study at all? I guess when I read this I got some information about science and about social science, so it’s all kind of related together, isn’t it? Maybe I should show Dwaynee this, too.

I figured out after a while that I can ask myself a list of questions to figure out a word…

1. Can I understand the sentence without knowing the word? Can I get the main idea of what they’re saying?
2. Can I look at the words nearby to see about what the word means? Is there another word nearby that maybe means the same thing?
3. Can I think of another word that I would put in the sentence that makes sense?

By using these questions, it helps me understand a lot of words that maybe would make reading hard for me. You never know where you’re going to find some hard words! You know, I saw that movie Casino Royale with James Bond. I thought, maybe those James Bond books would be good to read… they’ve got lots of action, so you can kind of see what’s going on.

So, I bought this James Bond book, Thunderball, and almost right away I wanted to put it back down. All those words… Look at this sentence:

When he coughed—smoking too much goes with drinking too much and doubles the hangover—a cloud of luminous black dots swam across his vision like amoebae in pond water.

Luminous? Amoebae? What do those words mean? What’s he talking about? But I didn’t give up. See if you can figure out those words… and I’ll check in with you next week to tell you how I did it.

Finding the main idea is really important. I’ve learned a few things about it, when looking for information for the GED. You always have to ask yourself, when you’re reading for the GED, what’s the point?

That’s why summarizing is important to practice. It helps you find out the main idea. Some things that really help to identify the main idea are:

• Look at the beginning and end sentences of paragraphs. A lot of the time, they tell the main idea.
• Look at the end of poems or stories… a lot of time the main point is at the end.
• Look at the title of a reading. It can tell you what it’s all about!

I promised that I’d do a summary of this article about Vincente Fox: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/mexico_fox_dc;_ylt=AqEpWa18_E8yeU4JvB1Mk_Qdl.0A

So, I looked at the title. It said: “Mexico’s Fox falls from grace amid corruption probe.” Well, that’s confusing. Mexico’s Fox… that’s the guy, Vincente Fox. “falls from grace”? What’s that mean? “amid”? “corruption”? “probe”? Yikes! I can’t hardly understand a word. Corruption, though, that’s like being corrupt, taking bribes and stuff. Yup, anyone in Mexico knows about that! Okay… that gives me an idea what it’s all about.

I read the first sentence, and it seemed to be about Fox being corrupt, too. So, here’s my summary:

Vincente Fox was president of Mexico, and everyone thought he was an honest rancher. But now, he looks like he’s got a lot of money: a big car he didn’t pay for, expensive animals at his ranch. The government is investigating him, and people are starting to distrust him, even though he says he didn’t do anything wrong. The big scandal might be good for the other political party!

What do you think? Did I get the main idea?

Also, sometimes I’d read something and not really understand it. I would read the whole thing, but because the words weren’t really words I knew, I’d just be reading words and not getting meaning. Do you know what I mean?

Anyway, here are two strategies to remember what you read and to make sure you understood it.

• Restating means that you say something again in your own words. This is good to help you understand and remember something that’s pretty short. So, you can restate a sentence or a paragraph that you read.
• Summarizing means that you give the most important information about what you read. It’s like you’re writing down the main ideas of what you read. Maybe you write a paragraph saying what the main points of a whole article are. This is good for big readings and to help you figure out what the main ideas are.

The difference between restating and summarizing is that in restating, you don’t leave anything out. You just say it again in your own words. In summarizing, you only give the most important points, in your own words.

I started reading this news story about Vincente Fox: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/mexico_fox_dc;_ylt=AqEpWa18_E8yeU4JvB1Mk_Qdl.0A

I think I’ll try to use summarization to understand it and remember what I read. I’ll let you know my summary in the next post. Meanwhile, try it yourself, and let me know how it works for you!

When I looked at the article, here’s sort of how I did it:

KNOW I know some things about baking, because I’ve baked stuff before. Maybe baking blackberry cobbler is like baking biscuits? Or kind of like a pie. I know it’s got blackberries, kind of like pie filling, and a topping that looks kind of like biscuits. I also know that recipes have ingredients, measurements, and different steps, so I’ll be looking out for all that.

WANT TO KNOW I want to know the recipe for blackberry cobbler. What are the ingredients? How much of everything do I need? How do you put it all together? What do I need for pans and bowls and stuff? How long will it take to make?

LEARNED I learned that I was right about it being kind of like pie filling with biscuits on top. She uses the word “biscuity” to describe the topping! I also learned the recipe, which I’m going to try after I go shopping. I wrote down the answers to all my questions, so I’d have it all clear. I also learned something I didn’t expect… that’s how helpful pictures are in reading something! I didn’t know how to “zest” a lemon, but she’s got a good picture showing how to do it and what she uses. And so I learned the word “zest,” which is the outside of the lemon.

This recipe was pretty easy to read, but I bet I can use KWL to read harder stuff, too. What are you reading? Let me know!

I pay a lot of attention to what my son Roberto does in his school, and I’m trying to bring home ideas to help me study for my GED. I know, he’s still pretty young, but I figure that now’s the time he’s learning to read, right? I can get better at reading by using some of the things they teach about in his school.

Here’s something they have him do… when you need to read something, you go through three steps. You can remember them by remembering KWL. I think of it like the Dwayne reading strategy… you know, “KEWL!”

KNOW…Ask Yourself, What Do I Already Know?

The first thing to do is look at the topic you’re studying. What do you already know about it? What can you tell just by looking at what you’re reading? Are there pictures? What’s the title? What’s the subject? Write down what you already know.

WANT TO KNOW…Ask Yourself, What Do I Want to Know?

The second thing to do is think about what you want to know from reading. What do you think you’ll learn? What would be interesting to know? The thing about the GED is, when you read a passage, there’s always something you want to know… it’s the answer to the question! So, if it’s on the GED, I look at the question and think about what I want to know to answer it. Write down what you want to know.

LEARN…After Reading, Ask Yourself, What Did I Learn?

It helps you remember things to think about them after reading them. So, after reading, what did you find out? Did you find the answers to your questions? Did you learn anything else, anything new? Write down what you learned.

I’m going to try reading this article to figure out how to make a blackberry cobbler: http://thepioneerwomancooks.com/2007/08/the_great_cobbl-2.html

Elizabeth tells me it’s really good, so I’ll see what I can do. I’ll use the KWL method to read… and I’ll let you know how it works out. You try it with something you want to read, too!

I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.
Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows — only hard and with luminous edges — and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen. Alas! a few years ago, I should have said, “my universe;” but now my mind has been opened to higher views of things.
In such a country, you will perceive at once that it is impossible that there should be anything of what you call a “solid” kind; but I dare say you will suppose that we could at least distinguish by sight the Triangles, Squares, and other figures moving about as I have described them. On the contrary, we could see nothing of the kind, not at least so as to distinguish one figure from another. Nothing was visible, nor could be visible, to us, except straight Lines; and the necessity of this I will speedily demonstrate.
Place a penny on the middle of one of your tables in Space; and leaning over it, look down upon it. It will appear a circle.
But now, drawing back to the edge of the table, gradually lower your eye (thus bringing yourself more and more into the condition of the inhabitants of Flatland), and you will find the penny becoming more and more oval to your view; and at last when you have placed your eye exactly on the edge of a table (so that you are, as it were, actually a Flatland citizen) the penny will then have ceased to appear oval at all, and will have become, so far as you can see, a straight line.

I never thought about that! If you lived in a place that was flat, like you were really small and lived between two sheets of paper, you would only see lines. And so if you think about it, we only see two dimentions at one time, even though our world has three dimentions (like height, width, and depth). We can sorta see in 3D because we can tell if something’s close or far away, but we can’t see someone from the front, and the back, and the top and bottom all at the same time! So could there be like a 4th dimention or a 5th dimention? Could someone in a 4th dimentional world see us from the top and bottom and even our insides all at once? See, it gets really confusing! I bet this is the kind of thing Dwayne would like. It sounds all like science fiction! But I guess it’s just math, really. Here’s a practice question about the book.

According to the above passage, who is the narrator in Flatland?

1. A Man
2. A Line
3. A 2D Shape
4. A 3D Shape
5. Impossible to Know

At first I might think that answer 1 is right, because it’s not like a shape could write a book. But you gotta remember that the narrator and the author are two different things, so even though only a man or a woman could write the book, the narrator could be a shape or an animal or anything!

If you re-read the passage, you notice a line right away that mostly explains this answer.

“Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about… and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.”

He says right there that his “countrymen” are “Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures” all living in a “flat” land. So it can’t be a man or a 3D shape.

That means it’s either 2, 3 or 5. Later on, he talks about how things look like a line, but are really a shape. Like how he says that when you look at a penny with your eye right on the table its on, it looks like a line. So you might think the narrator is a shape. However, in that first line I quoted, it said, “Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares…” Lines were included! So that means some of his “countrymen” might be lines, and so he might be a line too. It’s impossible to know from just this passage. So, the answer is number 5.

Pretty loco, huh? This is the kinda book where it’s not like the words themselves are hard or anything. There’s not really anything I have to look up in the dictionary. But his ideas that he’s talking about are kinda weird and I’m not used to thinking that way, so I have to read it a few times to get what he’s really saying. But in the end, it’s fun to read things like this once you understand them. Now I can understand the things like 2D and 3D and maybe even 4D a little better. So if someone starts talking about it, I don’t feel completely lost (and by SOMEONE it’s probably going to be Dwayne)!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit the GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

One author who has done a really good job of writing genre fiction that a lot of people consider to be “literature” is Stephen King. He writes mostly scary stories and some science fiction, and most authors who write those kinds of things aren’t thought of very highly in the literary world, but he’s won a lot of awards and gotten a lot of good review from critics. He’s also been writing for a really long time! His first novel, Carrie, was published in 1974, and his latest one, Under the Dome, was published just last  year in 2009. That’s 35 years of writing!

So, maybe Stephen King writes “literature.” Maybe not. Either way, our practice question today is about his short story, “Willa.”

The moon was high when he and Willa walked back to the road, holding hands. David didn’t see how that could be–they had stayed for only the first two songs of the next set–but there it was, floating all the way up there in the spangled black. That was troubling, but something else troubled him even more.
“Willa,” he said, “what year is it?”
She thought it over. The wind rippled her dress as it would the dress of any live woman. “I don’t exactly remember,” she said at last. “Isn’t that odd?”
“Considering I can’t remember the last time I ate a meal or drank a glass of water? Not too odd. If you had to guess, what would you say? Quick, without thinking.”
“Nineteen… eight-eight?”
He nodded. He would have said 1987 himself. “There was a girl in the there wearing a T-shirt that said Crowheart Springs High School, Class of ’03. And if she was old enough to be in a roadhouse–”
“Then ’03 must have been at least three years ago.”
“That’s what I was thinking.” He stopped. “It can’t be 2006, Willa, can it? I mean, the twenty-first century?”

According to the above passage, when was this story most likely written?

1. 1987
2. 1988
3. 2003
4. 2006
5. There’s no way to know.

Ok, so since Stephen King’s been writing from 1974 to the present day, we can’t really cross anything out. And besides, the question specifically asks, “according to the passage above.” So I can’t use outside information to answer this question. Like maybe I already knew when it was written before I read this question. That doesn’t count. I gotta read the text.

In the text, it mentions all the dates: 1987, 1988, 2003, and 2006. Also, the things they talk about in the text could have been written in any time period. Like, roadhouses and t-shirts existed in 1987 and also in 2006, right? It’s likely that it was written in 2006 because that’s when the story seems to take place. At least, that’s what I’d imagine from when he says, “It can’t be 2006, Willa, can it?” But even so, it might not be 2006 even in the story! Obviously, the two main characters are really confused. The only thing they’re going off of to guess that it’s 2006 is that the girl with a ’03 t-shirt is at a roadhouse. But she could have graduated early or late. Or she could be in the Roadhouse and underage. Or she could look really young for her age, and she actually graduated 10 years ago! There’s really no way to even know what date it is in the book, and even if we knew that, we couldn’t be sure that the date in the book is the same date that the book was written.

What happens in the text of a story doesn’t really have anything to do with the circumstances or time period of the writer. And a book can even be written over a long time. Willa was actually published in 2006, but Stephen King coulda written it at any time. Maybe he even started it in 1974! There’s just no way to know. I’d go with #5.

Good luck studying for your GED, and keep reading!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit the GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

It’s all interesting stuff, but sometimes if we want to know more about it, we gotta read science books, like On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. He’s the guy who came up with this idea of evolution. I don’t know if he thought we all came from some sorta primordial soup though. I think he just mostly noticed that animals can change to fit their environment, and that eventually all of that species changes too. Here’s a paragraph from his book:

If we suppose any habitual action to become inherited—and I think it can be shown that this does sometimes happen—then the resemblance between what originally was a habit and an instinct becomes so close as not to be distinguished. If Mozart, instead of playing the pianoforte at three years old with wonderfully little practice, had played a tune with no practice at all, he might truly be said to have done so instinctively. But it would be the most serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation, and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been thus acquired.

What point is the author trying to make in this passage?

1. Talented people inherit their abilities.

2. It is difficult to know the difference between a learned habit and an inherited one.

3. Learned habits and inherited habits are the same thing.

4. Animals can not learn.

5. People do not have instincts.

Ay, I had to read this several times to understand it all. Immediately, I understood about Mozart. I know about him, he was a famous composer. Darwin says that he could play piano when he was tres años. That’s impressive, but it doesn’t mean he was born being able to play piano, right? He had to practice a little. So I guess Darwin’s trying to make a point about what you’re born with, and what you’re not born with. Like he says about what instincts get acquired by habit. So if you play piano a lot, then you eventually can play it just like it was an instinct. But it’s not an instinct you were born with, so you don’t necessarily pass it down to your children, like a basic instinct to find food.

That means number one isn’t right, because Darwin says right in the Mozart part that “it would be the most serious error” to guess that someone could inherit their talent just because their father or mother could do it. There’s a possibility that maybe they could inherit it, but that’s not what the author is saying here.

I think number two is right. Darwin says something really similar at the beginning: “If we suppose any habitual action to become inherited—and I think it can be shown that this does sometimes happen—then the resemblance between what originally was a habit and an instinct becomes so close as not to be distinguished.” Look at the last part. “…so as not to be distinguished.” That means they’re almost the same, so you can’t tell the difference. If you can’t tell the difference, then it would be hard to know which is one and which is the other. That’s exactly what number two says!

Number three is really close to number two. How do we know that Darwin isn’t just saying that there’s no difference at all? Well, He says that it would be wrong to say that instincts developed by habit in one generation are transmitted down to their children through inheritance. That’s making a strong point that they’re not the same. Otherwise it wouldn’t matter if your parents developed something from habit or from inheritance themselves. You’d have an equal possibility of inheriting either.

Number four and five are both wrong. It doesn’t say anything about either of these. Though, I think it’s important to realize that they’re wrong because the passage doesn’t talk about them. I know that animals can learn. People teach dogs tricks all the time! And I’m pretty sure everyone has instincts. That’s how we survive! But the question doesn’t ask about what’s true and what’s not true. It asks about what the author is saying. But here, we can see that he doesn’t say anything about that. He mostly talks about the difference between instincts and whether they’re developed in your life or inherited from your parents. That’s why I’m pretty sure that number two is right.

This was a really challenging question. If you could answer it right, you’re doing really well! Challenging yourself with difficult readings can make the kind of things you normally read a lot easier! It’s like running a little extra sometimes so that when it’s time for the big race, you know you can do it and more!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit the GED Academy at  http://www.passGED.com.