Mock Test for GRE - 2 - GRE MCQ

The key to this question is the contrast between the “elated,” or excited, crowd, and the “skeptical,” or doubting, cynics. We are looking for a word that would cause the crowd to be excited, but would cast doubt among skeptics. We can immediately eliminate choice (A) stolid, “unemotional,” choice (B) verbose, “talkative,” and choice (E) diffident, “lacking self-confidence,” as these are all negative adjectives for a political speech and would not invoke the excitement of the crowd.Choice (C) whimsical, “fanciful,” seems plausible: the crowd might like a fanciful, idealistic promise, while cynics would remain doubtful of its veracity.
However, choice (D) extravagant is a better choice, as it implies an attractive promise that might not be realistic.

Let us try to understand the meaning of the sentence from the partial information.

The sentence talks about an element that doesn't justify violence itself but does something to its use. This element is the belief that death, if for a sacred cause, can be considered a proper end of life. The structure and reasoning of the sentence implies that the element is trying to justify the use of violence. In other words, justify can be a good fill-in for the sentence.

Now, let us look at the meaning of the verbs in the options.

A. incriminates – to make (someone) appear guilty of a crime or wrongdoing
B. valorizes – to give or ascribe value or validity to
C. indicts – to formally accuse of or charge with a crime
D. abrogates – to abolish by authoritative action
E. rescinds – to take away
'Valorizes,' which means to give validity to something, is the correct answer. 'Incriminates,' 'indicts,' and 'abrogates' are opposite to what the context requires. 'Rescinds' does not go with the intended meaning of the sentence.

The correct answer is B.

The first blank describes the “relationship” of patients with their doctors, and the second blank describes these patients’ “reactions” to Insurance companies. 
so, correct sentence be like: The (i) Laconic relationship between patients and their doctors is evidenced by patients’ (ii) Antagonistic reactions to the attempts by insurance companies to force patients to see new doctors in different health care networks.

“While” is a detour road sign, indicating the contrast between what the university intended with the adoption of a new policy and the criticism that the policy received. For the first blank, predict that the policy was intended to satisfy or win the approval of the faculty. (B) is correct because mollify means to “appease” or “to make something better”; thus, mollifying the faculty would satisfy the faculty. (A), obviate, means to “prevent” or “eliminate,” which does not match the prediction.
Censure, (C), means “to show disapproval” or “to officially reprimand.”
For the second blank, you want a word that indicates how the faculty characterized the university’s attempt to address a "serious problem." Since the faculty was critical, predict that they thought the university’s policy was a poor or feeble attempt. (D) is correct because tepid means “lacking in force” or “unenthusiastic.” Pugnacious, (E), means “combative” or “inclined to fight.” Polarizing, (F), means “to divide into sharply opposing groups.”

You are asked here to weaken the parents’ argument, which is outlined in the first sentence of the stimulus: parents believe that poor attendance results from poor motivation. This sets up a cause-andeffect relationship between “poor attendance” and “poor motivation,” with poor motivation as the cause and poor attendance as the effect.
The parents go on to elaborate on their theory and suggest a plan of action, but this cause-and-effect argument is the central issue.

Since you need to weaken this argument, you need to find an answer choice that contradicts or otherwise introduces doubt into this assertion. Choice (B) does just this by stating that “the degree of interest in learning that a student develops” (i.e., a student’s motivation) is a result of “the amount of time he or she spends in the classroom” (his or her attendance). Choice (B) establishes a new cause-and-effect relationship with attendance as the cause and motivation as the effect.
Since this reverses the causality from the initial argument, it weakens the stimulus and is the correct answer.

Wrong choices (A), (D), and (E) fail to mention both attendance and motivation and therefore sidestep the issue. Choice (C) does mention both concepts, but its stance of decrying strict attendance policies is right in line with the last sentence of the stimulus and would thus strengthen rather than weaken the argument.

This question asks you to identify the most accurate summary of the passage. Use your summary of the topic, scope, and purpose of the passage as a prediction of the correct answer. This author is writing to inform the reader about a discovery that was initially exciting: scientists discovered a new bacterium that seemed to have the remarkable ability to use arsenic, and this discovery challenged assumptions about the building blocks of life. That matches the correct answer, (C). Choice (A) is extreme; the passage states that the new discovery introduced new possibilities for life in other parts of our universe, but it does not state that this discovery would prove that there is life in other parts of our universe. (B) contradicts the passage; in fact, "[a]rsenic is toxic to most known organisms." (D) does not reflect the passage’s main point, which is broader than how many elements can be considered "building blocks of life." (E) misses the boat by focusing on a detail in the passage and making a prediction that is not supported.

The correct answer to this Detail question is directly stated in the passage. GFAJ-1 can tolerate arsenic and "initial studies suggested that it could even incorporate the chemical into its cells.” Choices (A) and (D) both state that the GFAJ-1 strain is a form of bacteria. However, (A) states that it is a water-based bacteria, which is not supported by information in the passage. (D) states that the GFAJ-1 strain was believed to be a type of bacteria that incorporates arsenic into its cells, which (as noted above) is directly stated in the passage. This is the correct answer. Eliminate (B) because it states that the GFAJ-1 strain is a building block of life, not a bacteria strain that is made up of building blocks of life. Eliminate (C) because it states that the GFAJ-1 strain is a form of arsenic, not a bacteria strain that was thought to be arsenic based. Similarly, eliminate (E) because it states that the GFAJ-1 strain is a form of DNA, whereas the passage says that it seemed to develop DNA from arsenic.

This question asks you to evaluate the statement and identify the conclusions you can validly draw using the information from the passage. Choice (A) is a reasonable conclusion because it is based on the claim cited in the passage that arsenic-based bacteria would have “opened new possibilities for life elsewhere in the universe.” (B) is not based on any information stated in the passage. The passage suggests that the discovery of this new bacteria had implications for the likelihood of finding life on other planets, but it does not suggest that the bacteria came from another planet. (C) is a reasonable conclusion because the passage states that initial studies of GFAJ-1 suggested that “organisms can exist in chemical environments that scientists may not have considered.”

Ask yourself what kind of characterization it must be if the characterization hasn’t been confirmed. Predict that it must be one that was made too quickly or carelessly. Therefore, you can eliminate judicious, (A), which means “using good judgment.” Perfunctory, (B), means “done without much care” or “done superficially.” Making a characterization that hasn’t been confirmed would be an instance of acting quickly or without much care, so keep this choice. Hasty, (C), means “done quickly” or “done without much thought,” giving the sentence the same meaning as does perfunctory. Therefore, keep (C).
Orthodox, (D), which means “adhering to tradition or what is customary,” does not make sense in this context. Since Mr. Phillips is characterizing a political faction as ultra-neoconservative, he may indeed be partisan, (E), which means being “devoted to a particular group, idea, cause, etc.” However, there is not another choice that provides a similar meaning. Hence (B) and (C) are correct.

Notice the words "once" and "now." These contrasting words indicate that how the newspaper describes the scholarship program has changed; together, they constitute a detour road sign. Be careful taking apart the phrase “anything but unfair”; this means the newspaper used to assess the program as fair. "Now," however, the paper must describe the program as unfair. This is a good prediction. Inequitable, (D), means “unjust” or “unfair,” so keep this choice. Discriminatory, (E), means “biased” or “prejudicial.” This choice gives the sentence the same meaning as does inequitable and is the other correct answer. Eliminate reasonable, (A), and unbiased, (B), as contradicting the prediction.
There is no clue that suggests the program is lucrative, (C), which means “profitable.” Further, there is no other choice that gives the sentence the same meaning.

Since the restaurant is a “fledgling,” or new, business, it needs to avoid bad reviews to be successful. In the second part of the sentence, the term “opprobrious” means “publicly disgraceful” or “shameful.” If you did not know the meaning of “opprobrious,” given the context of the sentence, you may still have been able to infer that “opprobrious” has a negative charge. Therefore, predict that any instance of poor or inappropriate behavior by staff could lead to such bad reviews.
Obstinance, (A), means “stubbornness.” The obstinance of a staff member, especially in response to a customer's request, could indeed merit a bad review. Unseemliness, (B), means “inappropriate,” and staff who behave inappropriately could also earn the restaurant a bad review.
Though both (A) and (B) fit in the sentence, they do not give the text the same meaning. Keep looking for a match. Indecorum, (E), means “improper behavior” and gives the sentence the same meaning as does unseemliness, so (B) and (E) are correct. Kindness, (C), and courtesy, (D), are opposites of your prediction. 

The word “incongruity,” which means “a thing that is contrary or lacking consistency,” is a detour road sign indicating a contrast between the writer's nature and coping with setbacks "with equanimity." Someone with an equanimous disposition is “even-tempered” or “calm.” (Note that the root word equ means “even” or “equal.”) Predict that the author’s nature is not calm. Thus, (B) mercurial, meaning “having unpredictable moods,” is a match, as is (E) volatile. These are the correct choices. Xenophobic, (A), means “having a fear or hatred of foreigners.” Timorous, (C), means “shy” or “fearful.” Impassive, (D), means “not having or not showing feeling or emotion,”.

The correct answer is 1. By becoming part of the art, a performance artist can convey a powerful message within the art.
The passage implies that the performance artist in The 3rd I project is using his own physical suffering as a means to convey a message through his art. By agreeing to have a camera surgically implanted into the back of his head and having his entire life recorded and made available for public viewing, the artist is immersing himself in the art and becoming part of it. This extreme act is seen as a way to convey a powerful message to the viewers.

This Inference question asks you to identify statements about people's reaction to the artwork that follow from the passage. According to the critics mentioned in the passage, knowing how the art was created is potentially related to the audience’s interest in it. The reaction is mainly reliant on the concept, not the product, of the art. Thus, (B) is correct; if the audience doesn’t appreciate how the art was made, they may be less interested in it. Choice (A) doesn’t follow from the passage. Nothing suggests that the beauty or clarity of the images produced affects the success of the project. If (C) were true, it would likely increase the popularity of the performance and get people thinking about it. This has the opposite effect called for by the question stem.

The question asks what the author of the passage would think about the Pure Food and Drug Act; this law is discussed in the first paragraph, so start your research there. The only opinion there is that of Upton Sinclair, who was not happy that the act focused on food safety rather than the worker exploitation he sought to highlight in The Jungle. Look further to find the opinion of the passage's author. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the author indicates an opinion through a comparison, saying that "concerns over food safety and purity . . . won out over more compassionate objectives." Thus, the author feels that Congress with the Pure Food and Drug Act addressed a less important problem than it should have. Then again, in the last sentence of the passage, the author expresses agreement with Sinclair, saying that “the public’s stomach is, in fact, more sensitive than its heart.” Look for an answer choice that lines up with the opinion. (B) does so nicely; the author would think, just as Sinclair did, that this law was a misguided response to The Jungle, so this is the correct answer.

(A) is incorrect because the author does not express any opinion on the effectiveness of the law; she thinks a law protecting workers would have been a more appropriate response, but that doesn’t mean she thinks the law that was passed didn’t work. (C) confuses the U.S. law this question asks about with the Bavarian law discussed in the second paragraph. (D) is wrong because the only discussion of food prices comes in the second paragraph in connection to the Reinheitsgebot, not the Pure Food and Drug Act. (E) may be tempting because the author does think the act addressed a problem that should have been a lower priority. However, it's clear that The Jungle did highlight a problem with food quality, given its "stories of contaminated or diseased meat," and the law addressed that issue.

This Detail question asks for a fact about the effects of the Reinheitsgebot, which is discussed in the second paragraph. A quick paraphrase of the paragraph’s main point will serve as guidance: the law was enacted with the hope of keeping bread affordable, but many today associate it with beer purity. Keep this in mind as you evaluate the answer choices. (E) paraphrases the next-to-last sentence and is correct: "[modern] beers conform to the Reinheitsgebot." Even if the claims modern breweries make on this basis are misplaced, beer is being made with only the ingredients stipulated by this 16th-century law. (A) is incorrect; the author points out that the law was not intended to raise the quality of beer, and even if that happened as an unintended side effect, it isn’t mentioned in the passage. (B) can be eliminated; the law was passed in Bavaria, which is said to be part of the Holy Roman Empire, but there’s no indication the law was in effect throughout the empire. (C) may be tempting, because the author states that the intent of the law was to keep bread affordable. However, the passage never says whether it was successful in meeting this goal. Even though there are breweries that claim to follow the law today, there’s no indication that they’re legally obligated to; they may be invoking an old law in their advertising to cloak their beer in a mantle of purity. Thus, (D) is incorrect.

This question asks you to make inferences based on the information in the passage. You will need to evaluate each response one by one and weigh its merits. Choices (A) and (B) are similar in that they refer to Cather’s motives in becoming an author. The passage does not prove, however, that she wouldn’t have become an author at all if she had stayed in Virginia. Choice (B) is not the correct answer. You can also rule out (C); the author tells you explicitly that Cather remembered Virginia.

The fact that she was influenced by Nebraska doesn’t mean that she devalued her former home. To support the claim in (D), the passage would have to offer summaries of each novel and more information about Cather’s relationship to communities of people. You can’t draw this inference from the passage. In a literary analysis, an author could possibly support a claim such as the one stated in choice (E). However, based on this passage, (E) is emotional hyperbole. Choice (A) is the most feasible assumption. According to the passage, Cather certainly would not have written the specific novels she did write if she hadn’t moved to Nebraska as a child.

The correct answer to this Global question summarizes the passage’s structure. The passage certainly compares two landscapes, but to correctly answer this question, you must determine why the comparison is made. Choice (C) includes the main point of the passage—Cather’s shock upon first seeing Nebraska and its influence on her writing—and this is correct. You can eliminate choice (A) because it does not provide a reason for the comparison. Rule out (B) because prior to seeing Nebraska, Cather had nothing to compare to Virginia; we do not know how she “responded” to her home state. Choice (D) is similar to the correct answer, but the focus of the passage is not on Cather's thought process as she compared the two landscapes; rather, it's on her reaction to a new landscape and the effect of this experience on her writing. You can also cross off choice (E) as there is little to no information about the novels in the passage. Therefore, (C) is the correct answer.

The word “as” signals a continuation of ideas—the vocals were hard to hear because of the way the recordings were mastered. The answer is (A) maladroitly, which means “unskillfully” or “bunglingly.” Choices (B) copiously, (C) ingeniously, and (D) shrewdly are not in line with what you’re looking for—these words suggest more time and care than was spent. Choice (E) maliciously is too harsh. It’s doubtful the recordings were mastered with intent to harm.

Even with the road sign nonetheless, a contrast is not immediately clear. Consider the tone of the phrase “even her own family,” which suggests an element of surprise at the family’s response. Choice (A) deluded means “misled,” which doesn’t fit the context. Choice (B) chastised means “scolded,” which makes sense, since the robber would expect her family’s support, not scolding. Choices (C) absolved and (D) venerated imply support—rule these out. The last choice, (E) engulfed, doesn’t make sense in context.

The first blank is a good one to start with here. It describes something that’s happened to the guitar over its long history. Since the given example is the invention of the electric guitar, you can predict that the guitar has “grown” or “changed.” (B) evolved is a match and is correct. (A) stagnated, or “remained the same,” doesn’t fit, as an innovation is specifically mentioned in the first sentence. (C) regressed, or “moved backward,” does imply a change, but there’s no indication that the guitar has changed in a negative or regressive fashion.

The second blank explains the relationship between a modern guitar and a 15th-century instrument. “While” is a detour road sign; it indicates that there’s a contrast between this relationship and the evolution of the guitar. Furthermore, the second sentence indicates that a skilled guitarist would be able to “competently” play the vihuela. A good prediction would be that even though the guitar has gone through changes over the centuries, it is still similar to the vihuela. This idea is reinforced by the next sentence, which says that a modern guitarist could probably play the old instrument. (E) an affinity to is the correct answer; an affinity is a “similarity” or a “likeness.” (D) an incongruity with and (F) a divergence from both indicate a dissimilarity with the vihuela, which is not supported.

The third blank is directly connected to the vihuela; since all that’s known about it from this text is that it’s from the 15th century, predict that this blank means “old.” That’s (H) archaic, which means “outmoded” or “antiquated.” (G) inferior (“of lesser quality”) is wrong because there’s no support for the idea that the vihuela is worse than the guitar or any other instrument. (I) avant-garde may be tempting because it’s a term that’s o
en used in the context of music and other arts; however, it relates to “new” or “experimental” concepts, so it doesn’t fit here.

The key to this sentence is the description of the wine aficionado (or expert) as a “purist,” or someone who insists on the purity of things.
Since he rejects the first blank, you can assume it will be an antonym of pure. You can predict mixture, which fits in the context. However, he prefers the second blank, so this should be a synonym of pure and the contextual word “simple.”
For the first blank, the best match for your prediction is choice (A) amalgamation. This is an exact synonym of your prediction, mixture.
Choice (B) dissonance, which means “a disagreeable combination,” seems plausible. A purist would definitely find a mixture of two wines to be dissonant. However, we need a word that states this mixture has occurred for the sentence to make sense. Similarly, choice (C) enigma means “puzzle,” which may also be applicable to such a mixture but, again, lacks the necessary meaning of “mixture.” For the second blank, choice (E) unadulterated matches your prediction best. Choice (D) pragmatic means “practical” and does not fit as well as unadulterated in context. The wine aficionado does not prefer something for its practicality but for the taste; therefore, this choice would be misleading in the sentence. Choice (F) opaque, which means “impossible to see through,” may similarly be applicable to the wine; however, nowhere in the sentence is the color implied or relevant.

Since the student is described as “belligerent,” meaning “aggressive,” you can assume she will be attempting to provoke the other students.
Later in the sentence, the road sign “however” appears, which indicates a turn of events when the teacher takes over. You can predict aggravate for the first blank and calmed or lessened for the second blank. For the first blank, the best match for your prediction is (B) antagonize, which means “provoke.” Choice (A) satiate means “to satisfy,” which is inconsistent with the idea of belligerence. Choice (C) repudiate means “to reject the validity of,” which, although it may antagonize the students, lacks the direct connotation of aggravate. For the second blank, choice (F) assuaged is the best match to your prediction. Choice (D) exacerbated, which means “worsened,” is the exact opposite of what you are looking for. Choice (E) vacillated means “to be indecisive,” which sounds plausible but does not match the prediction as well as assuaged, or “calmed.”

Start tackling this question by looking at the last sentence. You know that the money is going to other departments, which are not necessarily the most underfunded. Therefore, you know there aren’t enough donors to the English department, or they aren’t generous enough. You can predict something that means “lack of” for the first blank. Choice (A) paucity of, which means “shortage,” works perfectly. Hang on to that one. For the second blank, you need something that contrasts how much the English department gets with how much the other ones get.
Discrepancy works nicely. That eliminates choice (E) paradox—this is not contrary to what might be expected. Choice (D) irritation is very tempting but wrong. Although this situation is certainly irritating, choice (F) disparity better matches your prediction of discrepancy. The final blank will describe the department in a manner similar to “underfunded,” with which it is paired. You can therefore reject choices (G) widespread and (I) newsworthy as being incorrect. That leaves (H) needy, which matches well with “underfunded.”

This is a Logic question. The correct answer will describe why or how the author used this sentence in constructing the passage. Refer to the second sentence in the second paragraph and ask this question: "Why did the author describe Hughes's relationship with Zuckerberg?" A good prediction can be found in the sentences before and a
er. The first sentence of this paragraph says that Hughes's success was due to his "chance selection" of Zuckerberg as a roommate, and the third sentence says his success was partly a product "of luck." So a good prediction would be "to show why Hughes believes luck was important to his success." (E), though stated in the abstract, matches this prediction and is correct. The second sentence illustrates why Hughes considered his wealth to be the result of luck, the proposition presented in the first sentence of the second paragraph. (A) is the content of the clue sentence but not its function. The author does contradict the idea that the wealthy will resist redistribution of wealth, but this is not the purpose the third sentence; eliminate (B). Cross (C) off the list; Hughes didn't write the book because he became wealthy. Eliminate (D) as well.
The third sentence includes only facts, not an argument.

The correct answer to this question will follow from the author's point of view expressed in the passage. The only place the author expresses an opinion is in the third paragraph, with "Hughes may be commended for his ethos of generosity and his recognition of an impending social dilemma." Specifically what Hughes has proposed is discussed at the end of the first paragraph—a plan to offset job loss due to changes in technology. However, in the last paragraph, the author views Hughes's specific proposal as impractical. Thus, what the author agrees with is the general belief that something should be done to help people who lose their jobs.

(E) is a match for this prediction. While the author never makes this statement directly, her only criticism of Hughes's plan is that it cannot be implemented. Since she commends Hughes's "recognition of an impending social dilemma," she would likely want to consider some solution to this problem. While the passage includes the opinion in the first part of (A), this is the point of view of "many people," not of the author. Moreover, charitable contributions are not discussed. (B) is not supported by the passage, which implies that technological change is inevitable and discusses only what might be done to offset its effects. (C) misuses some details from the passage about Hughes's life. The author does not imply that more education is a means to reduce the role of chance in allocating wealth; indeed, Hughes had access to education, yet luck was still the dominant factor in his great good fortune. (D) is half-right, half-wrong. Since the author commends Hughes, she likely believes his plan to be important, but she also identifies a significant problem that must be addressed before his plan could be implemented.

This is an Explain question; you're asked to explain the seemingly paradoxical position of the bicycle safety advocates, so your first task is to understand their position. Some governments have passed mandatory helmet laws in order to reduce bicycling injuries. However, safety advocates think that sometimes, these laws may produce the opposite result; in other words, that they may actually increase the number of injuries.

It's impossible to make a specific prediction here, as there are many facts that could explain this position. What you can predict, though, is that the right answer will be a fact that explains how bicycle helmets might cause injuries. (B) does exactly that. If a driver is more likely to drive safely around a bicyclist without a helmet, then it's possible that mandating helmet usage would actually make bicycling more dangerous as cars would not give bicyclists as much room. This is the correct answer.

(A) explains that there may be better ways for the government to achieve its goals than mandatory helmet laws but does nothing to explain how these laws could cause injuries. (C) may be tempting; you might think that this would be a downside of helmet laws because bicycle safety advocates would presumably like to see more people bicycling. However, like (A), it does not address the advocates' concern about safety. (D) only makes the position of the safety advocates more difficult to explain, as it provides a reason that at least some people— children—should wear helmets. (E) shows that helmets may not be effective in severe crashes, but this does not mean that they aren't effective in less severe crashes, nor does it show how they would increase the likelihood of injuries.

Be sure that you separate the two claims being made. The property manager claims that the pet restriction policy will reduce the number of dog attacks, and the tenants’ association claims the policy will not remedy the problem. To undermine the tenants’ claim, the correct answer will provide evidence that supports the property manager’s claim. (D) provides just that. If 90 percent of the current tenants’ leases expire soon, then the tenants will be forced to adhere to the new policy.
This does not prove that the policy will have its intended effect but does make that outcome more likely, thus weakening the tenants' position. (A) does not say how similar apartment complexes reduced dog bites, so it neither supports nor undermines the plan at this complex. (B), if anything, supports the tenants’ position that the breed restriction plan won't work. What the owner’s insurance policy covers has nothing to do with whether attacks occur; eliminate (C). Likewise, the fact that a majority of attacks occurred when the tenants did not have control of their dogs does not relate to what breeds those dogs are and thus does not impact the success or failure of the new policy; eliminate (E).

You don’t need to know who Caligula was to be able to answer this question: you simply need to recognize how he is being described, and be able to follow the direction the sentence is taking. Caligula is characterized as being remembered for “bacchanalian feasts,” which are basically parties involving a great deal of food and alcoholic beverages.
This is reinforced by the fact that the participants indulged in “every form of excess.” Therefore, you can predict that the blank, which describes Caligula, will mean something like “glutton.” Choices (D) puritans (“morally strict persons”). Choice (A) gadflies are “irritating people,” so that doesn’t fit in this context. Choice (B) sybarites are people devoted to luxury and pleasure, so that one certainly works. That leaves choices (C) philanthropists (“humanitarians”) and (E) wantons (“those who live luxuriantly”).
Humanitarians aren’t necessarily people who indulge in excess, and wantons creates a sentence with a meaning similar to the one created by sybarites. They’re your answers.

A
er the semicolon, the word “as,” meaning "because" in this context, is a straight-ahead road sign. Determine how Arthur looked upon seeing his wife, based on the fact that seeing her filled him with “elation.” “Elation” means “great joy,” so a good prediction for the blank would be happy. Choices (A) ebullient (“high-spirited”) and (E) ecstatic (“delighted”) both create sentences that say Arthur was happy when he saw his wife, and these are the correct answers. (B) esurient, which means “hungry” or "greedy," and (D) pensive, which means “thoughtful,” do not fit the context. Choices (C) peevish (“annoyed”).