Lesson 29 of 42 · Reading comprehension
Reading for implicit meaning: inference, purpose and tone
Draw only the inferences a passage supports, explain why an author includes a sentence, and read an author’s attitude without overstating it.
About 20 minutes
In this lesson
- Tell a supported inference from a merely plausible one.
- Identify what a sentence or example does in the author’s argument.
- Describe an author’s attitude in words no stronger than the passage’s own.
The idea
From what is said to what follows
An implicit-meaning question asks for something the passage does not state in so many words but that the text supports. Bocconi lists implicit meaning alongside explicit information as what its reading questions ask about. Stems use phrases such as "it can be inferred", "the passage suggests", "the author implies", "the author would most likely agree" or "the author mentions X in order to".
On a test, an inference is narrower than in conversation. In everyday life you infer whatever is plausible; here the right answer must be supported by the text alone. Typically it follows from one sentence, or from combining two, with no outside knowledge added. Plausible is not enough. If you need a fact the passage never gives, the option goes.
Three kinds of implicit question
Inference. Something follows from what is stated. The best inferences are usually modest: a careful restatement, a combination of two facts, a necessary consequence. They rarely sound exciting.
Purpose and function. Why does the author include a sentence, an example or a paragraph? Ask what it does in the argument: does it introduce a view to be challenged, give evidence for a claim, concede a point, or illustrate a general statement with a case? Signal words help. "However", "yet" and "but" often mark the author's turn away from a view just described; "for example" marks an illustration; "admittedly" or "none of this means" marks a concession.
Attitude and tone. What does the author think of a policy, a forecast or a view? Economic writing is usually measured, so the right answer is usually measured too: "sceptical", "qualified support", "cautious". Extreme words such as "contemptuous" or "enthusiastic" are rarely right unless the passage's language is equally strong.
Test each option with two questions
- Is it supported by specific words in the passage? Point to them. If you cannot, the option is out.
- Does it go further than those words? An option that takes "may reduce" to "eliminates", or a claim about one region to the whole economy, has gone too far.
A good habit is to say, before reading the options, what the passage would let you conclude. The right answer is often close to your own modest version.
Separate the author from the people described
Passages often present a view the author does not hold: "Commentators often argue that...", "Critics claim that...". The author's own view usually appears after a contrast word, or in evaluative language such as "appealing but incomplete" or "harder to defend". A question about what the author implies is about the author's view; an option that repeats the commentators' view is a classic wrong answer.
Keep background knowledge out
Economic passages invite outside knowledge. You may know what usually happens to bond prices when interest rates rise, or what central banks tend to do in a recession. That knowledge can help you follow the passage, but it cannot justify an answer. An option that is true in the real world but has no basis in the passage is not an inference from the passage.
Purpose questions: describe the move, not the topic
When asked why the author mentions something, the right answer describes what the mention does ("to introduce a view the author then qualifies"); wrong answers often describe what it is about ("to explain how households borrow"). Read the sentence after the mention: what the author does next usually shows why the mention was there.
Tone: collect the evaluative words
To judge attitude, list the words in which the author evaluates rather than reports: "appealing", "incomplete", "harder to defend", "says less than it appears to". Their direction (positive, negative, mixed) and their strength (mild, strong) give you the answer. A passage that concedes a point and then criticises shows a qualified, not a hostile, attitude.
Worked examples
Example 1: Combining two sentences
The regional development fund lends only to firms with fewer than 50 employees. Last year it made its largest loan to Tessil Nord, a textile firm.
Which of the following can be inferred?
- Tessil Nord had fewer than 50 employees when it received the loan.
- Tessil Nord is the largest firm the fund has lent to.
- Tessil Nord still has fewer than 50 employees today.
Combine the two sentences: the fund lends only to firms with fewer than 50 employees, and it lent to Tessil Nord. So when the loan was made, Tessil Nord met the rule.
Statement 2 confuses the largest loan with the largest firm. A smaller firm can receive a larger loan; the passage says nothing about the firms' relative sizes.
Statement 3 moves the time. The rule applied when the loan was made; nothing in the passage says the firm has not grown since.
Answer
Only statement 1 can be inferred. Statement 3 is the tempting one: it sounds like a restatement, but it adds a claim about the present that the passage does not support.
Example 2: Why does the author mention it?
It is often said that a weaker currency is good for a country's economy because it makes exports cheaper abroad. For exporters that buy few of their inputs abroad, this is largely true. Many manufacturers, however, import most of their components and energy, and for them a weaker currency raises costs almost as fast as it lifts sales.
The author mentions the view that a weaker currency is good for the economy primarily in order to
Look at what happens next. The author first concedes ("this is largely true") for one group of exporters, then turns with "however" to a group for whom the view fails.
So the view is introduced to be qualified: true for some firms, much less true for others.
Check the strength. The author does not say a weaker currency harms the economy; that would go further than the passage, which concedes the view holds for some exporters.
Answer
To introduce a common view that the author then qualifies by showing it holds only for some exporters. "To argue that a weaker currency harms the economy" is the tempting overstatement.
Example 3: Reading the author’s attitude
The ministry's growth forecast, which has overestimated growth in each of the past four years, again predicts that the economy will expand by 2.5% next year. The ministry has not explained what will be different this time.
The author's attitude towards the forecast is best described as
Collect the evaluative details: the forecast "has overestimated growth in each of the past four years"; it "again" predicts growth; the ministry "has not explained what will be different".
All three point the same way: the author doubts the forecast. That rules out "neutral" and "approving".
Check the strength. There is no insult and no claim that the ministry is dishonest; the author lets the record speak. "Sceptical" fits; "hostile" or "contemptuous" would overstate it.
Answer
Sceptical. "Hostile" is the tempting wrong answer: the direction is right, but the strength is not supported by the measured language.
Common traps
Plausible but unsupported
An option describes something that would probably be true in the real world. It catches readers who know some economics. Ask where in the passage it comes from; if you can point to nothing, reject it.
One step too far
The passage says a policy "may" help some firms; the option says it helps the economy. Each step looks small, but together they turn a modest claim into a sweeping one. The right inference stays as narrow as the text.
The view the author reports
Passages often describe a view in order to argue against it. An option that restates that view is tempting because the words are in the passage. Check whether the author endorses the view or turns away from it with "however", "but" or "incomplete".
Extreme tone
Options such as "dismissive", "hostile" or "enthusiastic" catch readers who sense the right direction. Economic passages are usually measured; match both the direction and the strength of the author's words.
Check yourself
Answer each question before you open its answer.
Question 1: Why the household comparison?
Reading comprehension
When a government runs a deficit, it borrows to cover the gap between what it spends and what it collects in taxes. Commentators often describe any deficit as a sign of poor management, comparing the state to a household that spends beyond its means. The comparison is appealing but incomplete. A household's income does not usually rise because it borrows; a government's tax revenue can, if the borrowed money is spent on roads, schools or research that make the economy more productive over time.
None of this means that deficits are harmless. Borrowing spent on projects that yield little, or borrowing that continues year after year while the economy is growing strongly, adds to the public debt without building the capacity to repay it. Interest on that debt must then be paid out of future taxes, leaving less for other spending.
The useful question, then, is not whether a government runs a deficit but what the borrowing pays for and when it happens. A deficit during a recession, when private spending has collapsed, can support jobs that would otherwise be lost. The same deficit during a boom is harder to defend. Judging fiscal policy by the size of the annual deficit alone, as many headline comparisons do, therefore says less than it appears to.
The author mentions the comparison between a government and a household primarily in order to
- A.show that governments should budget the way households do
- B.introduce a common view that the author then argues is incomplete
- C.prove that government deficits are harmless
- D.explain how households can raise their income by borrowing
Show the answer
Answer: B. introduce a common view that the author then argues is incomplete
Working
The comparison is attributed to commentators, and the very next sentence judges it: "The comparison is appealing but incomplete." The author then explains what it misses (borrowing can raise future tax revenue). So the comparison is there to be qualified. The author neither endorses it nor claims deficits are harmless.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This is the commentators' view, which the author calls "appealing but incomplete"; the author argues against applying it without qualification.
- C. The author says the opposite in the second paragraph: "None of this means that deficits are harmless."
- D. This describes the topic of a sentence, not its purpose, and reverses it: the passage says a household's income does not usually rise because it borrows.
What carries over
A view the author reports and then evaluates is usually there to be qualified; read the sentence that follows it.
Question 2: Which deficit would the author defend least?
Reading comprehension
When a government runs a deficit, it borrows to cover the gap between what it spends and what it collects in taxes. Commentators often describe any deficit as a sign of poor management, comparing the state to a household that spends beyond its means. The comparison is appealing but incomplete. A household's income does not usually rise because it borrows; a government's tax revenue can, if the borrowed money is spent on roads, schools or research that make the economy more productive over time.
None of this means that deficits are harmless. Borrowing spent on projects that yield little, or borrowing that continues year after year while the economy is growing strongly, adds to the public debt without building the capacity to repay it. Interest on that debt must then be paid out of future taxes, leaving less for other spending.
The useful question, then, is not whether a government runs a deficit but what the borrowing pays for and when it happens. A deficit during a recession, when private spending has collapsed, can support jobs that would otherwise be lost. The same deficit during a boom is harder to defend. Judging fiscal policy by the size of the annual deficit alone, as many headline comparisons do, therefore says less than it appears to.
It can be inferred that the author would regard which of the following as hardest to justify?
- A.Borrowing during a recession to pay for road building
- B.A deficit in a year when private spending has collapsed
- C.Borrowing year after year during strong growth to fund projects that yield little
- D.A balanced budget during a boom
Show the answer
Answer: C. Borrowing year after year during strong growth to fund projects that yield little
Working
The second paragraph names two features that make borrowing hard to defend: spending on projects "that yield little", and borrowing that "continues year after year while the economy is growing strongly". The third paragraph adds that a deficit during a boom is "harder to defend". Only the option about borrowing year after year during strong growth for low-yield projects combines both criticised features.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. The author says a deficit during a recession can support jobs, and that borrowing for roads can raise future revenue: both features count in its favour.
- B. This is the case the author defends most clearly: a deficit when private spending has collapsed "can support jobs that would otherwise be lost".
- D. The passage criticises deficits during a boom; a balanced budget in a boom involves no borrowing, so nothing in the passage counts against it.
What carries over
Inference questions about the author’s judgement are answered by matching the options to the criteria the author has already stated.
Question 3: The author’s attitude to headline deficits
Reading comprehension
When a government runs a deficit, it borrows to cover the gap between what it spends and what it collects in taxes. Commentators often describe any deficit as a sign of poor management, comparing the state to a household that spends beyond its means. The comparison is appealing but incomplete. A household's income does not usually rise because it borrows; a government's tax revenue can, if the borrowed money is spent on roads, schools or research that make the economy more productive over time.
None of this means that deficits are harmless. Borrowing spent on projects that yield little, or borrowing that continues year after year while the economy is growing strongly, adds to the public debt without building the capacity to repay it. Interest on that debt must then be paid out of future taxes, leaving less for other spending.
The useful question, then, is not whether a government runs a deficit but what the borrowing pays for and when it happens. A deficit during a recession, when private spending has collapsed, can support jobs that would otherwise be lost. The same deficit during a boom is harder to defend. Judging fiscal policy by the size of the annual deficit alone, as many headline comparisons do, therefore says less than it appears to.
The author's attitude towards judging fiscal policy by the size of the annual deficit alone is best described as
- A.approving, because the deficit is the clearest single measure of fiscal policy
- B.dismissive of deficits as irrelevant to fiscal policy
- C.neutral; the author takes no position
- D.critical, because the size alone leaves out what the borrowing pays for and when it happens
Show the answer
Answer: D. critical, because the size alone leaves out what the borrowing pays for and when it happens
Working
The last paragraph says the useful question is "what the borrowing pays for and when it happens", and concludes that judging by the size of the deficit alone "says less than it appears to". That is a measured criticism with a stated reason. The author does not call deficits irrelevant.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. The author says this approach "says less than it appears to", which is a criticism, not approval.
- B. Too strong. The author treats deficits as relevant (some are "harder to defend") and objects only to judging by their size alone.
- C. The final sentence takes a clear position, introduced by "therefore".
What carries over
Match the attitude in both direction and strength: a measured criticism is not dismissal.
Key points
A test inference must be supported by the passage alone; plausible is not enough.
The best inference is usually modest: a restatement, a combination of two facts, or a necessary consequence.
For purpose questions, describe what the mention does in the argument, not what it is about.
Separate the author's view from the views the author reports, and match tone in strength as well as direction.
All questions here are original and written for UniExamer; none comes from the test maker.
Written by the UniExamer team with AI assistance. Every worked example and check question was re-solved by an independent checker before publication. No subject expert has reviewed this lesson yet. If you find a mistake, write to support@uniexamer.com.