Test: Verbal Aptitude - 5 - GMAT MCQ

The passage describes the role of Alcott’s women in their society and briefly wonders about the author’s motivation.

(A) concerns only the last sentence of the passage.
(B) and (D) ignore that the passage discusses a novel rather than reality. (D) is also too broad and somewhat nonsensical since the passage concerns the past.
(E) misses the author’s tone — there is no indictment, merely a discussion.

In the second paragraph, the passage dismisses Meg’s taking part by saying it meant no more than talking to her husband, remaining home, and allowing him to be a mediator between her and the world.

(A) misses the point of the passage and is almost backwards. (B) and (C) are misplaced details about the alternative to taking part. (D) distorts the second paragraph, which said her husband was her mediator instead of her taking part.

The first statement is justified, as the first sentence states that the man of the house was at the warfront. The third statement must follow, because the passage states that men went out in public to conduct activities and returned home at night. The second statement, while quite possibly true, is not mentioned in the passage. The passage only states that Alcott glorified this condition in her novel, not that the entire society did so. Do not bring in outside information or make assumptions!

The author mentions that biologists accepted which one of the following as evidence for the theory that eyes evolved from multiple origins?
Refer: "This lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments has provided what is perhaps the strongest support for the multiple origin theory."

Initially, passage offers support to multiple origin theory and later contrasts it.

(A) concern that biologists have accepted the single origin theory without carefully evaluating the assumptions it is based on---opposite to passage
(B) concern that biologists may have prematurely abandoned the multiple origin theory--too general not mentioned in the passage
(C) confidence that the discovery will imminently lead to the complete abandonment of the multiple origin theory--- not mentioned in the passage
(D) optimism that its discovery might foster a reevaluation of the assumptions biologists utilize when researching evolution in general--passage didnt talk about evolution in general
(E) anticipation that the discovery will foster further efforts to determine whether all varieties of eyes have evolved from a single ancestral prototype eye

(A) determine how each species’ characteristic eye structure will differ from that of other species---not mentioned
(B) probably occur in all animals but only activate eye formation in just a few---not mentioned
(C) may be interchangeable among mice, fruit flies, and humans without causing members of those species to develop eyes that are atypical for their species
(D) regulate specific aspects of eye evolution in certain species, suggesting that those species need not be assumed to stem from a common ancestor--opposite
(E) activate eye formation in species including humans and mice, and this helps explain how evolutionary convergence occurs--inconsisten

We begin with a Global question of the “title” variety, and it’s not likely that any book with a title as long as these is ever going to make it to the best-sellers list. Nonetheless, the length of these titles works in our favor, giving us more elements to match up to confirm our selection. Keeping the main gist of the author’s concern in mind (which, remember, is Vernon’s answer to the question of why these African Americans grew rice), we can confidently evaluate the choices looking for the one that best sums up the passage. And it helps that the first choice is the winner:
(A) What? “The Introduction of Rice Cultivation.” Where? “What is now the U.S.” By whom? “Africans” (which based on the setting makes them African Americans). When? “During and After Slavery.” And “Its Continued Practice” relates to the main question of why this occurred during this time. All major elements present and accounted for. If you picked up an essay with this title, you wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find these 55 lines—which is, after all, the best confirmation that (A) is correct.
(B) sounds like a pretty good title for the hypothetical passage described in the first Big Picture bullet point above. The origin of rice cultivation in the U.S. pertains well enough to the first para, but is too narrow for the rest of the passage. Its impact on the economy? That’s a distortion and a FUD (faulty use of detail) trying to get some mileage out of the dates 1760 and 1920. More importantly, what about the reasons why African Americans engaged in this practice? That’s the main concern of the passage and nothing in (B) reflects that.
(C), (E) The tenant system (line 34) is too small a part of the passage to be part of the title, and the time frame of (C)-post slavery-doesn’t encompass Vernon’s first theory.
(D) We have cultural and political explanations of a phenomenon here, not a description of cultural and political contributions of African Americans.

To say one is “intrigued” (line 22) means that one is interested, willing to listen. “Receptive” is therefore a perfect description here of the author’s attitude toward Vernon’s theories. Calling Vernon’s discovery “compelling” (line 12) also matches up well with (B)’s “admiring of its accomplishments.” (B) best describes the author’s attitude here.
(A) Half right, half wrong: “Respectful” is fine, but “skeptical” is unwarranted. Nowhere in the passage does the author state or imply that he questions the validity of Vernon’s theories.
(C) The author does seem to applaud Vernon’s effort, but again, the words “compelling” and “intriguing” have to rule out “neutral” as the attitude toward her findings.
(D) Same as (A)—“skeptical” is uncalled for here.
(E) Motives are never discussed, but “overtly dismissive” is really the main culprit in this one. There’s not one negative word about Vernon’s theories in the whole piece.

This Application question narrows our focus to the final Paragraph and the post-slavery explanation. Refresh your memory if you need to: Although not economically practical, these African Americans engaged in growing rice for cultural and political reasons. We’re therefore looking for another situation in which people engage in an activity as an “end in itself” with more than just economic considerations in mind. The situation in (D) relates perfectly to the African Americans’ motivation cited in lines 47-50; they viewed the land as “an extension of self and home” and desired to “make it their own.” The neighborhood folks tend to the vacant lot out of a similar sense of ownership, and their protest of the city’s neglect of the lot corresponds nicely to the political explanation given in lines 50-55.
(A) The activity here does not fall into the category of “an end in itself”: Beautifying is a goal that extends beyond the mere act of planting, and creating borders qualifies as a practical consideration.
(B) The activity here certainly involves a practical economic motivation unlike any underlying the rice cultivation of the African Americans in question.
(C) “A sense of civic duty” runs counter to the symbolic political protest of the post-slavery African American rice growers. Also, this activity is intended to “forestall” a city action, whereas the African Americans’ activity was in protest of the lack of a promised government action. Not analogous.
(E) More practical considerations abound in (E). The African Americans and the neighbors in correct choice (D) transformed space for no practical economic reason but rather out of a sense of ownership and protest. This group in (E) is transforming space with a specific practical goal in mind.

Let us quickly write the paragraph summaries
I: rice + rice methods --> USA
II: why rice?
III: After slavery ended --> difficult to explain
IV: Answer to why After? land = self's extension + political motive

Here the second paragraph poses the question, not the first. The first paragraph just presents a fact. So we can easily eliminate options (D) and (E) because they start with "a question is raised". After that it is fairly straight-forward to get to (C) as it simple follows. Fatal flaws in (A) & (B) is everything is not correct after the first part - a fact is presented.

(A) From 1979 to 1990, fewer employees of manufacturing companies in Alameda lost their jobs because of the introduction of microelectronics than did employees of manufacturing companies in the nearby community of Rockside. irrelevant comparison - we care about the causes in Alameda only
(B) The figures on the use of microelectronics that were made public are the result of inquiries made of managers in the manufacturing industry in Alameda. irrelevant
(D) Figures on job losses in the manufacturing industry in Alameda for the late sixties and early seventies have not been made available. That's no help
(E) A few jobs in the manufacturing industry in Alameda could have been saved if workers had been willing to become knowledgeable in microelectronics. this is only relevant to "a few" jobs - we want to know the cause of the majority

(A) Readers of love stories between the ages of 18-24 prefer to read relatively simple plotted books.- Incorrect.
To solve this Conclusion Strengthening question, first break down the argument. The beginning of the second sentence is a premise which cites findings (survey); the end is the conclusion Anny Chross reached:

• Premise: Detective story readers between 18-24 want things kept simple.
• =
• Chross' Conclusion: Simplifying her story's plot would be a popular choice with her readership
• Possible assumption: Chross' readership is aged 18-24
• Strengthening Data: ?

You are required to find data that supports Chross' decision to simplify her plots or detracts from using complicated plots. The correct answer could be one that confirms the argument's assumption.
This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument as we are discussing the plots of detective novels, not love stories.

(B) Readers of detective novels prefer buying paperback over hard cover, as the former tend to cost significantly less. - Incorrect.
The preference of paperback over hard cover have nothing to do with Anny Chross' decision to make the plot of her next novel more simple; therefore, this answer choice cannot be said to strengthen that decision.

(C) 58.5% of Anny Chross' readers are adults younger than 25 years.
This answer choice strengthens Chross' decision by confirming her assumption: if most of Chross' readership is between 18-24 (adults=18 and up, younger than 25=24), the survey findings apply to her readership and simplifying the plot to fit this age group's preferences makes more sense.

(D) The age range of Anny Chross' readership spans between 14 to over 80 years old. - Incorrect.
To solve this Conclusion Strengthening question, first break down the argument. The beginning of the second sentence is a premise which cites findings (survey); the end is the conclusion Anny Chross reached:

• Premise: Detective story readers between 18-24 want things kept simple.
• =
• Chross' Conclusion: Simplifying her story's plot would be a popular choice with her readership
• Possible assumption: Chross' readership is aged 18-24
• Strengthening Data: ?

You are required to find data that supports Chross' decision to simplify her plots or detracts from using complicated plots. The correct answer could be one that confirms the argument's assumption.
This answer choice emphasizes the inherent assumption in Chross' argument, thereby weakening it. If Chross' readership spans all ages between 14 and 80+, a decision to change her plot to meet the preference of a relatively small group of young adults makes less sense.

(E) Readers between the ages of 35-44 find relatively simple plots uninteresting. - Incorrect.
This answer choice weakens Anny Chross' decision by citing an alternative case, the case of older adults, who dislike simple plots (unlike young adults). This data supports not simplifying the plots; however, you were asked to find data that promotes Chross' decision to simplify her plots.

A. By changing maintenance schedules, the Transit Authority can achieve the 5 percent increase in train trips without purchasing any new subway cars.[Purchasing is not mentioned as part of the argument – eliminate it]
B. The Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways. [Bus trips is not mentioned as part of the argument – eliminate it]
C. For most commuters who use the subway system, there is no practical alternative public transportation available. [Alternative transportation system is out of scope of the sargument – eliminate it]
D. Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours when trains are now sparsely used. [Hold it]
E. The 5 percent increase in the number of train trips can be achieved without an equal increase in Transit Authority operational costs. [Why to discuss about operational cost – eliminate it]

Conclusion: The manager, therefore, suggests that the company reject 500 of the 2,000 light bulbs it produces each week.
Premise: A light bulb company produces 2,000 light bulbs per week. The manager wants to ensure that standards of quality remain constant from week to week.
Assumption: There’s no problem with the plan. There’s no problem with the manager’s plan to ensure that standards of quality remain constant from week to week by rejecting 500 of the 2,000 light bulbs the company produces each week.

The word assume in this question stem indicates that it is an assumption question. The argument contains a planning pattern, recognizable by the reference to a plan. The plan is to ensure that standards of quality remain constant from week to week, and the manager plans to achieve this by rejecting 500 light bulbs each week.

The standard assumption in a planning pattern is that there’s no problem with the plan. Since the question stem refers to a criticism, the correct answer will point out a problem with an assumption in the plan to ensure that standards of quality remain constant from week to week by rejecting 500 of the 2,000 light bulbs the company produces each week. Evaluate the answer choices.

Choice A: No. The choice is out of scope. The ability to market every light bulb is unrelated to the decision to ensure standards of quality.
Choice B: No. This choice is out of scope. A plan does not need to assume that other methods to achieve the same goal would not work.
Choice C: No. The choice is out of scope. Whether each light bulb that is reviewed is worthy of being reviewed is irrelevant to whether the plan will ensure standards of quality, as the argument does not present how the 500 rejected bulbs will be selected
Choice D: No. The choice is out of scope. If the manager’s plan assumes that it is difficult to judge the quality of a light bulb, then the manager has already taken such criticisms into account.
Choice E: Correct. This choice presents a problem with the plan. The plan assumes that by removing 500 bulbs, the quality of the other 1500 light bulbs will be consistent. This is not necessarily true, as it could be that more than five hundred light bulbs each week vary in quality.

The correct answer is choice E.

A. A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country. -> irrelevant, here what the problem concerns about is the competitiveness of their nation's business
B. Many businesses in this country already offer employees some form of parental leave. -> the law requires to offer employees unpaid time off so if some form of parental leave is not unpaid leave, the businesses must change their regulations to comply with the law -> still no freedom
C. Some of the countries with the most economically competitive businesses have strong parental-leave regulations. -> seems good, this choice proves regulations donot harm the competitiveness
D. Only companies with one hundred or more employees would be subject to the proposed parental-leave law -> what if companies with one hundred or more employees account for the large proportion of nation's businesses?
E. In most polls, a majority of citizens say they favor passage of a parental-leave law -> irrelevant, what citizens say may not effect the competitiveness

So C

This one hits close to home. Fox LSAT is a worker-owned business. I’m the only worker. As such, I do have to spend time on management decision-making and other tasks that are not “directly productive,” i.e., not directly related to teaching. Fox LSAT has “less extensive divisions of labor” (no division of labor whatsoever, actually) than a bigger, investor-owned company like Kaplan would have. This is all fine; the argument doesn’t bother me up to this point.
But the next line says, “Such inefficiencies can lead to low profitability, and thus increase the risk for lenders.” Here’s where I get off the wagon. First of all, the sentence says “can” rather than “must.” So even if this is true, it still doesn’t have to apply to every single business. (I think I’m probably a lot more profitable per student than Kaplan is, because I focus most of my energy on teaching, which leads to a better product and satisfied students, whereas Kaplan focuses most of its energy on marketing, which leads to a **** product and dissatisfied students. But, I digress.) Since this premise doesn’t have to apply to every business, I think it doesn’t prove that Fox LSAT isn’t profitable, and if I’m profitable, then why would I be a bad risk for a lender?
The question asks us to “weaken” the argument, and my first guess is something like “Many businesses with no division of labor have high profitability.” Let’s see.

A) Meh. This answer choice, even if true, might only apply to those one or two businesses with the most extensive divisions of labor. And even then, those businesses would only “fail to make the fullest use” of their employees. So what? Those could still be great businesses, and businesses without divisions of labor could still be way worse. I don’t see how this would weaken the argument. No way.
B) The source of loans that are made to worker-owned businesses simply isn’t relevant, because it’s very possible that bankers are stupid. See the housing crisis of the first decade of the 2000s, caused primarily by banks’ outrageous greed and terrible underwriting. The argument was about whether there is risk, and this answer does not prove one way or the other whether there is risk. No way.
C) Same explanation as B. It’s not about the number of loans.
D) Same explanation as B and C. It’s not about the number of loans that are “traditionally” given.
E) Yep. This answer wouldn’t apply to Fox LSAT, because I am a lazy bastard. But if it were true about Fox LSAT, then I would be compensating for the so-called “inefficiencies” inherent in non-division of labor by busting my ass. If I busted my ass, then I could be profitable. If I was profitable, then I could be a good risk for lenders.

A through D were all really bad, and I can make a plausible case for E. So E is our answer.

(A) There are no other substances besides calcium that are typically present in orange juice that cause allergic reactions. Incorrect. Here, we are only discussing people who are allergic to calcium, not to any other substance.
(B) Orange juice has the same nutritional value whether calcium is added or not. Incorrect. We are not bothered about the nutritional value of orange juice.
(C) Calcium-allergic individuals cannot ingest any calcium without having an allergic reaction. Incorrect. So, this just tells us that a person can only get an allergic reaction when they intake calcium.
(D) Calcium is often added to other beverages besides orange juice. Incorrect. This has nothing to do with an assumption, which is a missing link between a premise and a conclusion.
(E) In orange juice that does not have calcium added during production, calcium is not naturally present in quantities that cause an allergic reaction. Correct. Yes, if we negate the same statement, the conclusion will fall apart.

The counties are similar, the candidates are similar, and the elections seemed quite similar up until the difference of endorsements. Mr. Dewey was endorsed, and Mr. Landon was not. Dewey won, and Landon lost. The argument attributes the difference in election outcome to the difference in endorsements, and we want to evaluate this argument.
(E) is the credited answer. This is crucial: if voters were not aware of the endorsements, then those endorsement could not influence how they voted.
(A) is not necessarily relevant. Presumably both counties voted Republican in most elections, since both are heavily Republican. It's unclear how that would explain anything about the different results in these two elections.
(B) is also not directly relevant. Both counties have a sizeable majority of Republicans. If all voters had simply voted along party lines, both Dewey and Landon would have won. Since a Republican candidate lost, this must mean that many Republicans voted against him. Presumably neither one of these candidates received substantial support from the Democrats in his county.
(C) is entirely irrelevant. National–level politicians often endorse local candidates without having a clue about the local situation. The national-level politician has name-recognition and prestige: these make such an endorsement powerful, regardless of how well informed the national-level politician is about the local political scene.
(D) is vaguely relevant --- if endorsement from Congressmen always happened in both counties, or never happened in either county, then one of these two elections would constitute an exception to the general rule, and that could be notable. But, if endorsements happened irregularly, with no general rule, then it would be considerably harder to argue that this unpredictable pattern was decisively relevant to this argument. Because we don't know what the past pattern of endorsement was, we don't know how relevant this piece of information would be.

(A) An increasing number of households rely on a highly standardized diet. - out of scope, mentions nothing about standardization trends
(B) The less standardized a household’s diet is, the more nonfood waste the household discards. - out of scope, mentions nothing about nonfood waste
(C) The less standardized a household’s diet is, the smaller is the proportion of fresh produce in the household’s food waste. standardized throws away 50 lbs but 25 lbs veggies, not standardized throws away 100 lbs but 10 lbs veggies -> correct
(D) The less standardized a household’s diet is, the more canned and prepackaged foods the household discards as waste. this one is super tricky but only works if food waste is only comprised of fresh produce + canned foods (in reality you can have meats, pre-prepared). The passage doesn't state that, so eliminate
(E) The more fresh produce a household buys, the more fresh produce it throws away. opposite of what passage says (less fresh produce = more fresh produce thrown away)

The passage states that the price-per-pound of ostrich meat has not decreased even though the supply of the meat has been abundant. We are asked to find an explanation for this seeming contradiction.

(A) CORRECT. If the demand has outpaced the supply, even if the supply is abundant, it is likely that the price will remain steady, at the very least.
(B) The difficulty of breeding ostriches is not relevant to the market price, given that the supply of the meat is abundant.
(C) If other types of meat have decreased in price, one might expect that ostrich meat would decrease as well to remain competitive.
(D) The lack of effort of the part of the beef industry to counter beef's poor image does not speak to the issue of why the price of ostrich meat has remained steady despite an abundant supply.
(E) If ostrich meat becomes more readily available, one might expect that the price of the meat would decrease.

(A) The first statement is not an example; it is a premise upon which Marie's initial conclusion is based. The second statement is not a premise in favor of choosing Marie's activity (the ring toss); it merely invalidates Anne's argument for her preferred activity (the raffle).
(B) CORRECT. The first statement is a premise upon which Marie's initial conclusion is based. The second statement invalidates Anne's reasoning for promoting her preferred activity (the raffle).
(C) The first statement is not a conclusion; it is a premise upon which Marie's initial conclusion is based. The second statement is not a premise in favor of choosing Marie's activity (the ring toss); it merely invalidates Anne's argument for her preferred activity (the raffle).
(D) The first statement is a premise upon which Marie's initial conclusion is based. However, the second statement does not argue against that activity (the ring toss); rather, it argues against Anne's activity (the raffle).
(E) The first statement is not a conclusion; it is a premise upon which Marie's initial conclusion is based. The second statement does invalidate Anne's reasoning for promoting her preferred activity (the raffle).