Test: Verbal Aptitude - 4 - GMAT MCQ

(A): Opposite. If more dangerous criminals are being imprisoned, this claim would be strengthened.
(B): Out of Scope. This claim is never made, and the relative numbers of the imprisoned would have no effect on it even if it were.
(D): Opposite. This opinion would be strengthened by the evidence that more dangerous criminals are justly receiving longer sentences.
(E): Incorrect, as described above

(A): Distortion. While there may be more dangerous offenders, this doesn‘t mean that there are more offenders overall.
(C): Distortion. Though those in the middle class by definition have more money, there‘s no indication that they‘re using it to escape prison terms.
(D): Distortion. Though there may be class inequity in sentencing, this doesn‘t mean that all lower class offenders are undeserving of prison terms.
(E): Extreme language. The author never assumes this.

(A): Opposite. As mentioned in para 5, an opponent of prediction would be more in favour of letting a criminal go free than imprisoning an innocent person.
(C): Out of Scope. The passage doesn‘t deal with this at all.
(D): Out of Scope. The passage doesn‘t deal with this at all.
(E): Out of Scope. The passage doesn‘t deal with this at all.

a. Independent movie chains had little bargaining power with regard to the individual movie titles they wanted to buy.- incorrect, Block booking was an all-or-nothing deal; for any unaffiliated movie house, feature films were packaged with four or five lower quality movies.
b. The 'Big Five' had the ability to fight legal proceedings for years.- incorrect, United States vs. Paramount Pictures, Inc antitrust case that had first been brought against the 'Big Five' nearly a decade earlier
c. The ratio of output produced to revenue generated of B-list films exceeded that of feature films.- incorrect, Ticket sales from these features, which usually made up nearly half of total output, gave the studios the cash flow to keep their operations running at full capacity.
d. Because of the 'star system,' studios decided to vertically integrate their production, distribution and exhibition divisions.- Correct,
Such vertical control gave rise to the 'star system,'
e. The 'star system' played a part in the practice of 'block booking.'- incorrect, The practice was conceived in 1915 by Paramount Pictures founder Adolph Zukor in response to the public's attraction to Mary Pickford, his silent-screen contract star and 'America's first sweetheart.' Block booking was an all-or-nothing deal

A. illustrate how America' fascination with movie stars was a catalyst for the studios' questionable business practices.- Correct
'Block booking' was the practice these 'moguls' used to sell their low-budget products to independent theater owners. The practice was conceived in 1915 by Paramount Pictures founder Adolph Zukor in response to the public's attraction to Mary Pickford, his silent-screen contract star and 'America's first sweetheart.' Block booking was an all-or-nothing deal.

b. A studio's star mix and revenue stream were directly correlated.
in which actors and actresses were groomed for A-class features, the bulk of a studio's revenues.

The passage is primarily concerned with
providing an overview of a particular period of time within an industry.- Correct, the passage provides an overview of 'The Golden Age of Hollywood'

This question asks for the relationship between the intended audiences of each passage. Be wary of answer choices that confuse the relationship, that are half correct, or that are a poor match for the Bottom Line.

A. No. Passage A does not seek to convince skeptics, and passage B is aimed at a general audience. Passage A is aimed at those with direct experience.
B. No. Passage A is aimed at bodybuilders, and passage B is aimed at a general audience.
C. No. Passage A does not imply the use of a personal trainer, and passage B does not imply that people are working out on their own.
D. Yes. Passage A references bodybuilders and weight lifting in lines 2, 4, 13, and 15 and addresses the second person, e.g., “The first time you trained, you didn’t know how much you could lift” in lines 31–32. Passage B is written in lay terms and summarizes a new scientific explanation for a common phenomenon many people experience when training.
E. No. Passage A mentions a possible psychological explanation, but the context of the passage indicates that bodybuilders are the primary audience. Passage B is aimed at a general audience.

Breaking down our argument:
1. there are left and right snails; some left evolved from right
2. snakes have jaws adapted to right snails
3. (if) snakes ate more right snails (then) left would have had advantage (and) become new species
4. (therefore) snakes' jaws drove evolution of left snails

The logic is extremely straightforward so we can look for a likely answer (a Precise approach). In particular, to strengthen the argument we can show that the logical connections (marked by 'then' and therefore') are correct: the snakes did in fact eat more right-snails; the left-snails did in fact have an advantage (no other predators); there were sufficient snakes for this to be an issue; etc..

Skimming through our options, (E) is the only direct answer -- it states that snakes are bad at eating left-snails so they have an advantage.

A - We already know that GFC was partially funding this. Knowing that the other part of funding comes from the govt tells us nothing new. OUT
B - Whether the workers are local or not tells us nothing about whether the net income will increase, because we know nothing about the productivity or cost of local vs intl workers. OUT
C - If GFC is going to replant mangroves, it is likely that they will lose this source of income. If anything, this weakens the conclusion. OUT
D - If the number of fish in fishing grounds increases, then it directly follows that the net income of GFC will increase as well. This option therefore supports the conclusion and is CORRECT
E - This is mildly tempting, but all it tells us is that the amount of erosion will not get worse. So this option doesn't weaken the conclusion but it doesn't outright strengthen it either. OUT

B) says that after the road repair is completed, it will not damage the cars for several years, substantiating the claim made in the orignal stem.

A, C, D, E are irrelevant.

Conclusion: This explains the increase in violent robberies since the early releases began.
Premise: Prison overcrowding has forced the early release of hundreds of criminals back into the population of Metro City.
Assumptions:
(1) It’s not a coincidence. It’s not a coincidence that there is an increase in violent robberies since the early releases began.
(2) There’s no other cause. There’s no other cause for the increase in violent robberies.

This is a weaken question as evidenced by the phrase which of the following…jeopardizes the conclusion. The passage contains a causality reasoning pattern, attributing the increase in violent robberies to the early release of hundreds of criminals back into the population of Metro City.
The standard assumptions of a causality reasoning pattern are that it’s not a coincidence and there’s no other cause. Because this is a weaken question, the correct answer will provide a reason that demonstrates that the increase in violent robberies was either a coincidence or potentially caused by other factors. Evaluate the answer choices, looking for one that reflects this idea.
Choice A: Correct. If the prisoners released early were first time offenders who had never committed violent crimes, then it is unlikely that they caused the increase in violent robberies after they were released. Thus, the increase was either a coincidence or caused by other factors.
Choice B: No. Whether the parole board…was under significant pressure is out of scope. This does not weaken the conclusion that the early release of hundreds of criminals…explains the increase in violent robberies since the early releases began.
Choice C: No. Whether prisoners released early are required to report to probation officers is out of scope. This does not weaken the conclusion that the early release of hundreds of criminals…explains the increase in violent robberies since the early releases began.
Choice D: No. The fact that police officers will work overtime is out of scope. This does not weaken the conclusion that the early release of hundreds of criminals…explains the increase in violent robberies since the early releases began.
Choice E: No. The fact that the population of Metro City would like to stop the early release of any criminals is out of scope. This does not weaken the conclusion that the early release of hundreds of criminals…explains the increase in violent robberies since the early releases began.

The correct answer is choice A.

For any weaken question, remember that your first step is always to fully understand the stimulus and to find the gap. This question makes a generalization: it says that because the country of Senovia is the only one in the region to have the same borders as it has 20 years ago, that it can be considered a stable force in an unstable region. However, you only have two snapshots in time: the borders of Senovia as they are now and the borders of Senovia as they were 20 years ago. You don't have any other points of reference within that 20-year period.

Choice (A) perfectly fills this gap. Even though the borders are the same as they were 20 years ago, not only have they shifted over the last 20 years, but the instability was severe enough that the United Nations had to intervene.

Among the other answers, choice (B) strengthens the assertion that the rest of the region is relatively unstable. Choice (C) can be eliminated because it has to do with the intentions of other countries rather than the stability of Senovia itself. Choice (D) can be eliminated because the argument is about the stability of Senovia rather than its economic growth, and choice (E) can be eliminated because it is a general statement about the region as a whole rather than the stability of Senovia itself.­

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
The question stem asks for something that reduces the likelihood that the officials’ program was effective. Thus, this is a Weaken question.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS
The city officials instituted a program that called for reduced water usage, and the water levels did return to normal. The author concludes that the water reduction program was responsible for this result.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER
This a classic example of an unsupported cause-and-effect argument. The author assumes that the program caused the levels to return to normal and that nothing else was responsible. Your prediction should be along the lines of “something other than the program led to the increased water level.”

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES
(B) matches this prediction. It doesn’t outright state what the other factor was. However, if other reservoirs in the area recovered without a water usage program in place, then some other factor must have been involved. (A) makes an irrelevant comparison between this year and last year. Even if last year’s levels were higher, it’s still possible that the program helped the reservoirs return to normal this year. (C) is another irrelevant comparison: as long as people reduced water usage overall, the program still could have worked. (D) suggests that there could have been a more effective plan, but that doesn’t mean that the city officials’ plan was ineffective. And the timing of the drop in water usage, in (E), does not affect the argument that the plan caused the reduction and that this reduction caused reservoir levels to rise.

The author presents the conclusion of this stimulus in the first sentence:
Multiparty democracies with fewest parties have the most productive legislatures.
This conclusion is based on the following premises:

• Premise 1: The fewer the parties, the more issues each must take a stand on.
• Premise 2: A wide variety of issues forces prioritization.
• Premise 3: Prioritization promotes a tendency to compromise.

The above premises can be diagrammed as follows:

• Fewer parties --> more issues --> prioritization --> compromise

In order to draw the conclusion presented in the stimulus, the author must believe that compromise is tied to productivity. In responding to this supporter assumption question, we should therefore look for the answer choice which allows for the following conditional statement:

• Fewer parties --> more issues --> prioritization --> compromise --> productivity

Thus we can prephrase the answer to this supporter assumption question.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. We must somehow link productivity with one of the sufficient conditions to the left in the diagram above. Correct answer choice (C) achieves exactly this, by linking compromise to productivity:

• compromise --> productivity

Answer choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because the stimulus doesn’t deal with disagreements within parties, or with the importance of compromise. Answer choices (D) and (E) are also incorrect, because the author never mentions nondemocracies, or whether or not legislators ever all agree.

The puzzling fact we're trying to explain here is: why did the number of overweight shoppers in Arcadia County increase even when sales of high-fiber foods rose and foods high in saturated fat dropped?

Let's break down each answer choice:

A. If many people who buy food in Arcadia County don't live there, this would suggest the buying habits aren't necessarily representative of the county's residents. But, this doesn't directly explain why more shoppers in the county are overweight.
B. Even if healthy-weight shoppers don't read nutritional labels, it doesn't clarify why the number of overweight shoppers has gone up. They could still be making healthy choices without reading labels.
C. Ah, this is interesting! If people cut down on saturated fat but end up consuming more calories overall, they could still gain weight. Excess caloric intake, regardless of the source, can lead to weight gain.
D. This contradicts the information given in the prompt. We know that the number of overweight shoppers has increased, so it can't be that the obesity rate has been decreasing.
E. Even if most fruits and vegetables from Arcadia County were shipped out of state, this doesn't specifically address why there's been an increase in overweight shoppers in the county.
Given our breakdown, the answer that best helps explain the increase in overweight shoppers in Arcadia County, despite the shift in food buying habits, is:

C. People who reduce their intake of saturated fat often increase the number of calories they consume.

(A) The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is probably false. -->As it could not be verified, it could be true or false.
(B) Only the hypotheses of physical science are verifiable. -->No where mentioned about only hypotheses of physical science is verifiable.
(C) Only verifiable hypotheses should be seriously considered. -->No where mentioned which ones to take seriously.
(D) We do not know whether the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true or false. -->As it could not be verified, it could e true or false.
(E) Only the hypotheses of physical science should be taken seriously. -->No where mentioned which ones to take seriously.

The conclusion of the passage-that genetically modified (GM) salmon genes disappeared from the wild population-stands in contrast to the earlier finding that those genes had entered wild salmon. To explain this discrepancy, we need a reason why the modified genes, once present, would no longer be detectable in the follow-up study.

(A) provides a compelling explanation: offspring resulting from interbreeding between GM and wild salmon had significantly lower survival rates than offspring of two wild salmon. If these hybrid offspring were less likely to survive and reproduce in the river environment, their genetic contribution would diminish over time. This natural selection effect would explain how the modified genes, although initially present, disappeared from the wild population by the time of the second study. This choice actually resolves the apparent contradiction in the passage.
(B) This strengthens the discrepancy. If GM salmon were more likely to survive due to predator avoidance, one would expect the genes to persist, not disappear.
(C) Does not explain the disappearance of the genes from the wild salmon in the river. The original study already confirmed the presence of those genes in the wild population, so movement of the GM salmon themselves to the ocean is irrelevant and this choice does not address why there are no offspring in the river system.
(D) Trap answer choice, as it only focuses on the Wild Salmon. This does not resolve the disappearance of modified genes from the population in the river environment.
(E) This answer choice is not helpful to explain the discrepancy. Even if a small number of GM salmon had escaped, they were detected in sampling originally, and we would expect that the sampling would increase or at least show some signs of impact. Not seeing any GM genes is not explained by this answer choice.

This question asks you to identify the reasoning in an argument. The argument begins by stating a common perception, and then objects to that perception, while the second sentence contains information supporting the objection. The bolded phrases contain the author’s objection to the common perception (first phrase) and a definition used in support of the author’s objection (second phrase). Choice C is the most accurate description of the roles played by these phrases. Choice A is inaccurate in that the first phrase does not actually state the author’s conclusion. Choice B inaccurately suggests that the first phrase is merely an introduction to evidence, instead of an objection to an idea. Choice D incorrectly labels the first phrase a premise. Choice E is a reversal of the correct answer. Choice C correctly identifies the roles played by the two phrases, and is the best answer.