Sectional Tests: Verbal - 1 - GMAT MCQ

The drug lysergic acid diethlyamide (LSD) has several notable characteristics:

• Research into LSD shows potential, but findings remain inconclusive.
• The drug binds to neuron receptor sites that typically interact with serotonin.
• It is believed that the locus ceruleus contributes to the drug's rapid effects on bodily systems.
• LSD is known to stimulate both norepinephrine and serotonin.
• Consumption of more than 20 micrograms can lead to hallucinations.

The author's primary goal in writing the passage is to:

• Outline a theory and propose further research options.
• Advocate for additional studies to clarify a theory's validity.
• Introduce a theoretical construct that remains insufficiently proven.
• Demonstrate the complexities involved in a specific type of scientific research.
• Articulate a hypothesis and present the case for its validation.

To undermine the central premise of the Jacobs hypothesis, the following points are crucial:

• LSD's neurological impact: If LSD is shown to cause less long-term neurological damage than believed, this could challenge assumptions about its effects.
• Serotonin and norepinephrine connection: The idea that these neurotransmitters rise and fall together might suggest a different interaction than proposed by Jacobs.
• Norepinephrine's role in sleep: If research proves that norepinephrine significantly aids in sleep, it could shift focus from other factors in the Jacobs hypothesis.
• Alternative hallucinogens: Evidence that other semi-synthetic hallucinogens do not inhibit serotonin could weaken the argument made by Jacobs.
• Stages of sleep: Demonstrating that the first four sleep stages are vital for dreaming could contradict the importance placed on the fifth stage in the hypothesis.

According to the passage, the following statements are accurate except for one:

• Norepinephrine and serotonin are released only during waking states.
• Consuming more than 20 micrograms of LSD may lead some individuals to experience hallucinations.
• Rapid eye movement is the sleep stage in which dreaming occurs.
• LSD prompts neurons to increase the discharge rate of norepinephrine.
• The absence of serotonin appears necessary for the brain to enable dreaming.

The passage suggests the following regarding the fourth stage of sleep:

• Stage Progression: One must pass through the initial three stages before reaching the fourth stage.
• Parasomnias: Conditions like sleepwalking and confusional arousals are less likely to occur during this stage.
• Dreaming: "Normal" dreaming is not more frequent in the fourth stage compared to earlier stages.
• Neurotransmitter Activity: Certain neurotransmitter levels may change rapidly during this stage.
• Serotonin and Norepinephrine: These neurotransmitters decrease as the brain transitions into the fourth stage.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

• compare and contrast two significant theories of the good in political philosophy
• defend a theory of the political good based on personalism against criticisms from valuational solipsists
• argue that accepting personalism leads to valuational solipsism
• evaluate the effects of two major ideas on the theory of the good in political philosophy
• reject valuational solipsism as a valid method for defining the political good

A follower of personalism would likely reject the following policy:

• The decision to cancel company insurance to boost profits.

This choice undermines the well-being and security of employees for the sake of profit, which is contrary to personalist principles that emphasise the importance of individual dignity and welfare.

The primary value of the personality assumption is:

• It refutes the idea that institutions have interests that go beyond those of individuals.
• It acts as a counterbalance to the extremes of valuational solipsism.
• It shows that institutions cannot be classified as good or bad.
• It helps to maintain a nation’s culture.
• It offers a strong response to specific types of justifications.

Speech is regarded as a fundamental value in the following models:

• Classical model: Emphasises the importance of rhetoric and public speaking.
• Fortress model: Protects freedom of expression as a core principle.
• Self-restraint model: Advocates for responsible use of speech, recognising its impact.

In summary, speech holds significant value across all three models mentioned.

Function of the Last Three Paragraphs

• The author outlines two different theories.
• Each theory is linked to its historical context.
• Contrasting approaches are examined, showing both differences and similarities.
• The conclusions drawn from these theories are presented.

Meiklejohn and Holmes share a similar understanding of free speech in the following ways:

• Both believe that free speech contributes to discovering the truth.
• They support the right to express even extremist views.
• Both consider censorship as a means to suppress valuable speech.
• They justify free speech by emphasising the citizen's right to access all relevant views on public issues.
• Neither supports the notion of free speech without critical examination.

The phrase “uncoordinated responses of street-level bureaucrats” serves to:

• Explain a possible reason for the ineffectiveness of performance monitoring in welfare reform.

The author suggests that using common managerial tools in the welfare system can have varying effects:

• Procedural changes should ensure compliance with regulations for both workers and applicants.
• Methods like performance monitoring may lead to welfare organisations becoming too restrictive in their policies.
• State payments and federal funding can be effectively monitored through administrative changes at the national level.
• Quality control methods can help hold the federal government accountable for its actions.
• However, there is a concern that these tools may have completely failed to effect meaningful policy changes in the past.

It is a good idea to first read the question stem. It prepares you to analyze the stimulus according to the question. Plus, in a complicated question, you don't have to go back and read the entire stimulus again.
Here I first read the question: Ms. Siuzdak’s response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply which of the following?
I see there are two speakers. I know that Ms. Siuzdak interprets Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply something. Great, lets go ahead and read the stimulus.
Mr Janeck talks about the unwillingness of voters to elect a businessman without political experience to such a position.
Ms Siuzdak says, "You are wrong." and goes on to elaborate how experience of running a business prepares one to run the government.
When I read Ms. Siuzdak's response, I think, "She is interpreting an implication in Mr Janeck's remark. What is it?"
It does strike me as odd that he only mentioned how voters feel. He did not say that Stevenson was unsuitable for office while Ms. Siuzdak tries to convince him why Stevenson is suitable. She doesn't say something like, "You are wrong. Voters understand that the experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government."
Now I look at the options. It is pretty clear that she interpreted that Mr Janeck believes Stevenson is not suitable for office. (A) is the correct answer.
(D) is incorrect. The issue is experience here. Not how profit chasing affects the character of a person and makes him unsuitable for government office.
(E) is incorrect because she overlooked voters completely and responded to Mr Janeck as if he had said the following: "A businessman with no political experience should not be elected to such a responsible public office."

(A) higher-income taxpayers are likely to lend their support to the flat-tax proposal now being considered by Congress : Incorrect, given the premise higher income taxpayers are less likely to lend support to the flat tax proposal.
(B) a flat-tax system that allowed no deductions or exemptions would substantially increase actual government revenues : No information about government revenues in the premise, "could be true" answer but we cannot be sure about this. Incorrect.
(C) the lower-income taxpayer might well be penalized by the institution of a flat-tax system in this country : Opposite of what is the central argument. Incorrect.
(D) the progressive nature of our present tax system is more illusory than real : The argument talks about how progressive tax, even though initially enforced to tax the high paying group, has ended up doing quite the opposite. Hence, the progressive nature does not hold relevance in reality. Hold.
(E) the flat tax would actually be fairer to the lower-income taxpayer than any progressive tax system could be : The part "any progressive tax system could be" makes this option an exaggerated one. Agreed that the present system of progressive tax is flawed give that high-income group is able to find loopholes, but what is such changes are made that the high-income group cannot find loopholes and is taxed fairly? Hence, the claim that flat tax would be fairer to "any" progressive tax system cannot be made. Incorrect.

A person concerned about the misuse of confidential information would likely seek clarification on the phrase:

• “appropriate circumstances” - This phrase raises questions about the criteria or situations under which personal information might be disclosed. Understanding this could help ensure that the safeguards for privacy are clearly defined and not easily bypassed.

The claim is about high technology prestige.
Options a–d all show U.S. firms in high-tech categories (cameras, stereo/electronics, video games, televisions) imitating or leaning on foreign prestige—supporting the claim.
Option e is about frozen foods (not high tech), so it doesn’t support the claim.

The last sentence of the passage: Implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all.

We can say that the use of the dash in Jonnson writing is misleading
So the option best summarizes the author's main point will be surrounding the mistaking of the dash and misleading quality.
A. Although Johnson is right in criticizing Dickinson's early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions. (Nope! Johnson didn't really made a serious crime by using the dash, neither it was intentionally) INCORRECT
B. Johnson's use of the dash in his text of Dickinson's poetry misleads readers about the poet's intentions. (Yes, the dash is definitely misleading, Let's keep this)
C. Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions. (Well she did give her poetry for publishing, so this is out of option) INCORRECT
D. Although Johnson's attempt to produce a more faithful text of Dickinson's poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness. (As stated in option A, Johnson used only dash as a symbol of indecisiveness, not to intentionally mess with poetry) INCORRECT
E. Dickinson's editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering Dickinson's handwritten manuscripts. (Yes, I did choose this. But now when I think, this option is blaming editors, while Johnson dash use was misleading itself, so editors are innocent) INCORRECT
Therefore, the answer is B.

The conclusion of the argument is that a law mandating unpaid parental leave will negatively impact economic competitiveness. To weaken this conclusion, consider the following points:

• Some countries with strong parental-leave regulations maintain high economic competitiveness.
• Many businesses already provide forms of parental leave, indicating that the law may not be a significant change.
• Only larger companies would be affected by the proposed law, potentially minimising its overall economic impact.
• Public support for such a law suggests a societal shift that may outweigh economic concerns.

If A, then B. If B, then C. If C, then D. If all of the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?

To determine which statements must be true, consider the implications of the original statements:

• If A is true, then B must also be true.
• If B is true, then C follows.
• If C is true, then D is also true.

From this chain of reasoning, we can conclude:

• If D is true, it does not imply A is true (so A: If D, then A is not necessarily true).
• The statement B: If not B, then not C is true (this is an example of contrapositive).
• C: If not D, then not A is not necessarily true based on the given information.
• D: If D, then E does not follow from the initial statements.
• E: If not A, then not D is true based on the chain of implications.

In summary, the statements that must be true are:

• B: If not B, then not C.
• E: If not A, then not D.

P1: Unfortunately, we are unable to offer you a position in our local government office for the summer.
P2: As you know, funding for summer jobs is limited, and it is impossible for us to offer jobs to all those who want them.
P3: Consequently, we are forced to reject many highly qualified applicants.

The conclusion that can be drawn from the above letter to the Applicant is that the number of applicants who have applied for a summer job in the local government office exceeds the number of available summer jobs. This is exactly what is stated in option A.

Option B states that the Applicant who received the letter was considered highly qualified. This is not necessarily true based on the information provided above. It could be that the Applicant is among the many that are considered as highly qualified or the applicant could as well not be considered as highly qualified. what is, however, true from what is stated in the letter is that the Applicant is rejected because the number of jobs available is less than the number of applications received. It could be that the job offer is based on first come first served basis or it might be based on how highly qualified an applicant is, but such details have not been provided in the letter.

Option C states that very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office. While this is true, this is not the main conclusion that can be drawn from the argument. Little funding would have had no bearing on the letter if the number of applicants for a summer job is less than the available jobs in the government office. This can therefore not be the main inference or conclusion from the information provided above.

Option D states that the application of the person who received the letter was considered carefully before being rejected. This may not be necessarily true based on the argument. No information is provided about whether the application of the applicant has been considered carefully. Whether his application was considered carefully or not, there was no vacancy for him for a summer position at the government office. Hence D cannot be be an inference from the information provided above.

Option E states that most of those who applied for the summer jobs were considered qualified for the available positions. The information above states that many which is less than most. Option E cannot be true based on the information provided.