Question Description
In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?a)Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.b)Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.c)Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.d)They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.e)They did not succeed in fully achieving their political goals because of their disparate political views.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.