- Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:10 pm
I wouldn't advise going into any RC passage relying upon a rule such as that. Even considering your definition of an idea, that general concept the pros of which may be discussed in a particular paragraph, such a definition would not capture the fact that each of the points stated within that paragraph might contain separate ideas that are important (or even asked about) in their own right.
So, for example, if the passage discussed corporate criminal liability, and one paragraph discussed in support of corporate criminal liability, "as a pro," that corporations can act under some guise of free will, then the idea of free will, may in and of itself, be an important idea that garners a question. Can corporations have free will? Can they act in their own name, or, in committing a crime, do they necessarily act pursuant to the will of the person at whose impetus the "corporation" so committed the criminal act. In other words, by narrowly construing "idea" to be only those big picture concepts that the passage at large discusses, you may overlook other ideas/concepts that one may need to consider to answer questions.
Another important idea/point here is that the rule, even if true, won't really help you other than to possibly assuage your doubts as to identifying all salient ideas. To this point, I would say that you shouldn't think of your task in the RC as extracting all relevant information/ideas. This isn't a discovery request by the federal government! Rather, you should really focus understanding the main point of the passage and all arguments/points made. If you do this, you should be able to have at least some notion as to all the main ideas mentioned in the passage, regardless of where they may be scattered within the overall structure.