Test: Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills (CARS) - 1 - MCAT MCQ

Directions: Passage For Question 1 to 9

The majority of economists in the United States are strongly influenced by the ideology of the free market. Anything that does not conform to the principles of the free market is often viewed as negative or abnormal. The idea of sellers or any other entity determining prices, instead of the collective decisions of consumers, is seen as harmful. However, price-fixing, which is the determination of prices by sellers, is actually a normal occurrence in industrialized societies. In such societies, the industrial system itself leads to price-fixing as a natural consequence of its development. Large firms in these societies compete for the same group of consumers, and while they consider their own interests, they also take into account the common needs they share with other large firms. As a result, significant price cutting is avoided to maintain a stable demand for products. Many economists fail to recognize price-fixing because they expect it to be the result of explicit agreements among large firms, but it often occurs without such explicit agreements. Additionally, economists who argue in favor of free-market principles as the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the experiences of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These countries commonly engage in intentional price-fixing through cartels and agreements among industry members. If the free market were significantly more efficient than price-fixing, these countries would have suffered economically, but there is no evidence to support this. Even in socialist systems, controlled prices are used in their industries. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union began allowing some flexibility in price adjustments for firms and industries, which has been hailed by U.S. economists as a return to the free market. However, Soviet firms are still not subject to prices established by a free market, as they have little influence over them.

Q. The passage suggests that economists who argue for the efficiency of the free market:

Directions: Passage For Question 1 to 9

The majority of economists in the United States are strongly influenced by the ideology of the free market. Anything that does not conform to the principles of the free market is often viewed as negative or abnormal. The idea of sellers or any other entity determining prices, instead of the collective decisions of consumers, is seen as harmful. However, price-fixing, which is the determination of prices by sellers, is actually a normal occurrence in industrialized societies. In such societies, the industrial system itself leads to price-fixing as a natural consequence of its development. Large firms in these societies compete for the same group of consumers, and while they consider their own interests, they also take into account the common needs they share with other large firms. As a result, significant price cutting is avoided to maintain a stable demand for products. Many economists fail to recognize price-fixing because they expect it to be the result of explicit agreements among large firms, but it often occurs without such explicit agreements. Additionally, economists who argue in favor of free-market principles as the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the experiences of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These countries commonly engage in intentional price-fixing through cartels and agreements among industry members. If the free market were significantly more efficient than price-fixing, these countries would have suffered economically, but there is no evidence to support this. Even in socialist systems, controlled prices are used in their industries. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union began allowing some flexibility in price adjustments for firms and industries, which has been hailed by U.S. economists as a return to the free market. However, Soviet firms are still not subject to prices established by a free market, as they have little influence over them.

Q. According to the passage, why do some economists hail the changes in the Soviet Union in the early 1970s?

Directions: Passage For Question 1 to 9

The majority of economists in the United States are strongly influenced by the ideology of the free market. Anything that does not conform to the principles of the free market is often viewed as negative or abnormal. The idea of sellers or any other entity determining prices, instead of the collective decisions of consumers, is seen as harmful. However, price-fixing, which is the determination of prices by sellers, is actually a normal occurrence in industrialized societies. In such societies, the industrial system itself leads to price-fixing as a natural consequence of its development. Large firms in these societies compete for the same group of consumers, and while they consider their own interests, they also take into account the common needs they share with other large firms. As a result, significant price cutting is avoided to maintain a stable demand for products. Many economists fail to recognize price-fixing because they expect it to be the result of explicit agreements among large firms, but it often occurs without such explicit agreements. Additionally, economists who argue in favor of free-market principles as the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the experiences of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These countries commonly engage in intentional price-fixing through cartels and agreements among industry members. If the free market were significantly more efficient than price-fixing, these countries would have suffered economically, but there is no evidence to support this. Even in socialist systems, controlled prices are used in their industries. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union began allowing some flexibility in price adjustments for firms and industries, which has been hailed by U.S. economists as a return to the free market. However, Soviet firms are still not subject to prices established by a free market, as they have little influence over them.

Q. What does the passage suggest about the relationship between large firms and price-fixing?

Directions: Passage For Question 1 to 9

The majority of economists in the United States are strongly influenced by the ideology of the free market. Anything that does not conform to the principles of the free market is often viewed as negative or abnormal. The idea of sellers or any other entity determining prices, instead of the collective decisions of consumers, is seen as harmful. However, price-fixing, which is the determination of prices by sellers, is actually a normal occurrence in industrialized societies. In such societies, the industrial system itself leads to price-fixing as a natural consequence of its development. Large firms in these societies compete for the same group of consumers, and while they consider their own interests, they also take into account the common needs they share with other large firms. As a result, significant price cutting is avoided to maintain a stable demand for products. Many economists fail to recognize price-fixing because they expect it to be the result of explicit agreements among large firms, but it often occurs without such explicit agreements. Additionally, economists who argue in favor of free-market principles as the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the experiences of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These countries commonly engage in intentional price-fixing through cartels and agreements among industry members. If the free market were significantly more efficient than price-fixing, these countries would have suffered economically, but there is no evidence to support this. Even in socialist systems, controlled prices are used in their industries. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union began allowing some flexibility in price adjustments for firms and industries, which has been hailed by U.S. economists as a return to the free market. However, Soviet firms are still not subject to prices established by a free market, as they have little influence over them.

Q. What is the main reason given in the passage for the occurrence of price-fixing in industrialized societies?

Directions: Passage For Question 1 to 9

The majority of economists in the United States are strongly influenced by the ideology of the free market. Anything that does not conform to the principles of the free market is often viewed as negative or abnormal. The idea of sellers or any other entity determining prices, instead of the collective decisions of consumers, is seen as harmful. However, price-fixing, which is the determination of prices by sellers, is actually a normal occurrence in industrialized societies. In such societies, the industrial system itself leads to price-fixing as a natural consequence of its development. Large firms in these societies compete for the same group of consumers, and while they consider their own interests, they also take into account the common needs they share with other large firms. As a result, significant price cutting is avoided to maintain a stable demand for products. Many economists fail to recognize price-fixing because they expect it to be the result of explicit agreements among large firms, but it often occurs without such explicit agreements. Additionally, economists who argue in favor of free-market principles as the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the experiences of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These countries commonly engage in intentional price-fixing through cartels and agreements among industry members. If the free market were significantly more efficient than price-fixing, these countries would have suffered economically, but there is no evidence to support this. Even in socialist systems, controlled prices are used in their industries. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union began allowing some flexibility in price adjustments for firms and industries, which has been hailed by U.S. economists as a return to the free market. However, Soviet firms are still not subject to prices established by a free market, as they have little influence over them.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following is true about the comparison between socialist industry and capitalist firms?

Directions: Passage For Question 1 to 9

The majority of economists in the United States are strongly influenced by the ideology of the free market. Anything that does not conform to the principles of the free market is often viewed as negative or abnormal. The idea of sellers or any other entity determining prices, instead of the collective decisions of consumers, is seen as harmful. However, price-fixing, which is the determination of prices by sellers, is actually a normal occurrence in industrialized societies. In such societies, the industrial system itself leads to price-fixing as a natural consequence of its development. Large firms in these societies compete for the same group of consumers, and while they consider their own interests, they also take into account the common needs they share with other large firms. As a result, significant price cutting is avoided to maintain a stable demand for products. Many economists fail to recognize price-fixing because they expect it to be the result of explicit agreements among large firms, but it often occurs without such explicit agreements. Additionally, economists who argue in favor of free-market principles as the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the experiences of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These countries commonly engage in intentional price-fixing through cartels and agreements among industry members. If the free market were significantly more efficient than price-fixing, these countries would have suffered economically, but there is no evidence to support this. Even in socialist systems, controlled prices are used in their industries. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union began allowing some flexibility in price adjustments for firms and industries, which has been hailed by U.S. economists as a return to the free market. However, Soviet firms are still not subject to prices established by a free market, as they have little influence over them.

Q. Why do most economists fail to recognize price-fixing when it occurs?

Directions: Passage For Question 10 to 15.
The recent discoveries of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes have been highly significant in the field of physics. These discoveries have posed a major challenge to physicists, comparable to the failure of classical mechanics. As stars go through their life cycle and exhaust their hydrogen and helium fuel, the balance between outer nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force becomes disrupted, leading to contraction. During this contraction, a dense plasma is formed. If the star's mass is less than 1.4 times that of our sun, the contraction stops at a density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, resulting in the formation of a white dwarf. However, if the star is more massive, the white dwarf cannot resist gravitational pressures, leading to a rapid collapse where all the star's nuclei are converted into a gas of free neutrons. Further gravitational compression occurs until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached, resulting in the formation of a neutron star. If the star's mass is even greater, gravitational forces overwhelm the strong nuclear force, causing the neutrons to merge and form heavier particles. This collapse leads to the creation of unknown entities. The star continues to collapse until theories predict infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. Before this point, the surface gravitational force becomes so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape, resulting in the formation of a black hole. The gravitational collapse presents a fundamental challenge to physics, as current theories suggest seemingly impossible conditions like infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. This situation is reminiscent of the atomic structure paradox in the 1930s, which led to the development of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we may anticipate a significant advancement in our understanding of gravitational collapse.

Q. What has been one of the most exciting developments in physics after the discovery of red giants?

Directions: Passage For Question 10 to 15.
The recent discoveries of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes have been highly significant in the field of physics. These discoveries have posed a major challenge to physicists, comparable to the failure of classical mechanics. As stars go through their life cycle and exhaust their hydrogen and helium fuel, the balance between outer nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force becomes disrupted, leading to contraction. During this contraction, a dense plasma is formed. If the star's mass is less than 1.4 times that of our sun, the contraction stops at a density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, resulting in the formation of a white dwarf. However, if the star is more massive, the white dwarf cannot resist gravitational pressures, leading to a rapid collapse where all the star's nuclei are converted into a gas of free neutrons. Further gravitational compression occurs until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached, resulting in the formation of a neutron star. If the star's mass is even greater, gravitational forces overwhelm the strong nuclear force, causing the neutrons to merge and form heavier particles. This collapse leads to the creation of unknown entities. The star continues to collapse until theories predict infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. Before this point, the surface gravitational force becomes so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape, resulting in the formation of a black hole. The gravitational collapse presents a fundamental challenge to physics, as current theories suggest seemingly impossible conditions like infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. This situation is reminiscent of the atomic structure paradox in the 1930s, which led to the development of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we may anticipate a significant advancement in our understanding of gravitational collapse.

Q. At what density does the contraction of a star cease if its mass is less than 1.4 times the mass of our sun?

Directions: Passage For Question 10 to 15.
The recent discoveries of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes have been highly significant in the field of physics. These discoveries have posed a major challenge to physicists, comparable to the failure of classical mechanics. As stars go through their life cycle and exhaust their hydrogen and helium fuel, the balance between outer nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force becomes disrupted, leading to contraction. During this contraction, a dense plasma is formed. If the star's mass is less than 1.4 times that of our sun, the contraction stops at a density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, resulting in the formation of a white dwarf. However, if the star is more massive, the white dwarf cannot resist gravitational pressures, leading to a rapid collapse where all the star's nuclei are converted into a gas of free neutrons. Further gravitational compression occurs until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached, resulting in the formation of a neutron star. If the star's mass is even greater, gravitational forces overwhelm the strong nuclear force, causing the neutrons to merge and form heavier particles. This collapse leads to the creation of unknown entities. The star continues to collapse until theories predict infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. Before this point, the surface gravitational force becomes so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape, resulting in the formation of a black hole. The gravitational collapse presents a fundamental challenge to physics, as current theories suggest seemingly impossible conditions like infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. This situation is reminiscent of the atomic structure paradox in the 1930s, which led to the development of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we may anticipate a significant advancement in our understanding of gravitational collapse.

Q. What happens if the original star's mass is more massive than a few solar masses during the collapse?

Directions: Passage For Question 10 to 15.
The recent discoveries of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes have been highly significant in the field of physics. These discoveries have posed a major challenge to physicists, comparable to the failure of classical mechanics. As stars go through their life cycle and exhaust their hydrogen and helium fuel, the balance between outer nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force becomes disrupted, leading to contraction. During this contraction, a dense plasma is formed. If the star's mass is less than 1.4 times that of our sun, the contraction stops at a density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, resulting in the formation of a white dwarf. However, if the star is more massive, the white dwarf cannot resist gravitational pressures, leading to a rapid collapse where all the star's nuclei are converted into a gas of free neutrons. Further gravitational compression occurs until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached, resulting in the formation of a neutron star. If the star's mass is even greater, gravitational forces overwhelm the strong nuclear force, causing the neutrons to merge and form heavier particles. This collapse leads to the creation of unknown entities. The star continues to collapse until theories predict infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. Before this point, the surface gravitational force becomes so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape, resulting in the formation of a black hole. The gravitational collapse presents a fundamental challenge to physics, as current theories suggest seemingly impossible conditions like infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. This situation is reminiscent of the atomic structure paradox in the 1930s, which led to the development of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we may anticipate a significant advancement in our understanding of gravitational collapse.

Q. What is the fundamental challenge posed by gravitational collapse to physics?

Directions: Passage For Question 10 to 15.
The recent discoveries of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes have been highly significant in the field of physics. These discoveries have posed a major challenge to physicists, comparable to the failure of classical mechanics. As stars go through their life cycle and exhaust their hydrogen and helium fuel, the balance between outer nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force becomes disrupted, leading to contraction. During this contraction, a dense plasma is formed. If the star's mass is less than 1.4 times that of our sun, the contraction stops at a density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, resulting in the formation of a white dwarf. However, if the star is more massive, the white dwarf cannot resist gravitational pressures, leading to a rapid collapse where all the star's nuclei are converted into a gas of free neutrons. Further gravitational compression occurs until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached, resulting in the formation of a neutron star. If the star's mass is even greater, gravitational forces overwhelm the strong nuclear force, causing the neutrons to merge and form heavier particles. This collapse leads to the creation of unknown entities. The star continues to collapse until theories predict infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. Before this point, the surface gravitational force becomes so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape, resulting in the formation of a black hole. The gravitational collapse presents a fundamental challenge to physics, as current theories suggest seemingly impossible conditions like infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. This situation is reminiscent of the atomic structure paradox in the 1930s, which led to the development of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we may anticipate a significant advancement in our understanding of gravitational collapse.

Q. What happened in physics during the 1930s regarding atomic structure?

Directions: Passage For Question 10 to 15.
The recent discoveries of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes have been highly significant in the field of physics. These discoveries have posed a major challenge to physicists, comparable to the failure of classical mechanics. As stars go through their life cycle and exhaust their hydrogen and helium fuel, the balance between outer nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force becomes disrupted, leading to contraction. During this contraction, a dense plasma is formed. If the star's mass is less than 1.4 times that of our sun, the contraction stops at a density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, resulting in the formation of a white dwarf. However, if the star is more massive, the white dwarf cannot resist gravitational pressures, leading to a rapid collapse where all the star's nuclei are converted into a gas of free neutrons. Further gravitational compression occurs until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached, resulting in the formation of a neutron star. If the star's mass is even greater, gravitational forces overwhelm the strong nuclear force, causing the neutrons to merge and form heavier particles. This collapse leads to the creation of unknown entities. The star continues to collapse until theories predict infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. Before this point, the surface gravitational force becomes so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape, resulting in the formation of a black hole. The gravitational collapse presents a fundamental challenge to physics, as current theories suggest seemingly impossible conditions like infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. This situation is reminiscent of the atomic structure paradox in the 1930s, which led to the development of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we may anticipate a significant advancement in our understanding of gravitational collapse.

Q. What is the main reason why economists fail to recognize price-fixing when it occurs?