Verbal Practice Questions - 2 | Practice Questions for GMAT PDF Download

This passage is written to support short-term rentals and provide arguments as to why they should be supported. Therefore, the correct answer is "advocate for a particular position." The passage is not objective and unbiased, as it clearly has a particular agenda. While the intersection of business and community is a theme discussed in the passage, it is not the primary purpose. Short-term rentals are not a negative phenonmen, and so the answer choice, "rationalize a negative phenomenon," is also incorrect. The passage also does not "point out the weaknesses in a widely accepted point of view."

The use of the term "hard limits" is used in the paragraph that describes how some cities and towns do not allow any short-term rentals. Based on this context, "hard limits" refers to a decisive ban, so the term that is closest in meaning would be "restrictions that are uncompromising."
While the author might see the rules as unfair, impratical, or as being overbearing restrictions, these are not the meaning carried by the term "hard limits." Additionally, the author does not see the hard limits as being "useful regulations," so this answer choice is wrong. 

The author would most likely agree with the statement "While short-term rentals and communities would mutually benefit from regulations, a hard ban against them would be mutually counter-productive." This is because the author explicitly states that communities and short-term rentals should be allies as opposed to enemies. Thus, mutually beneficial regulations would serve them both well. 
This answer choice says the exact opposite, and so it is incorrect: "Communities should see short-term rentals as an adversary, when they can just as easily be made an ally."
There is no evidence to suggest that the author supports this statement: "Although short-term rentals are popular right now, it is likely that they will diminish in value as more restrictions are enstated against them."
The author implies that hotels and short-term rentals are competitors, so this statement is not correct: "Hotels and short-term rentals complement each other and can contribute to one another's mutual development."
The author believes that some regulations are beneficial, so this statement is incorrect: "In general, regulations have proven to do a disservice to travel industry, as the red tape prevents commerce from moving freely, and discourages travel as a whole."

The best answer is "Short-term rentals, due to the transitory nature of their inhabitants, can make the members of a community feel uncomfortable, thereby negatively impacting the Homeowners' Association." Given that the patrons of short-term rentals are constantly coming and going, the nature of short-term rentals can upset members of a Homeowners' Association, who usually strive for consistency and stability. 
While short-term rentals may be competition for hotels, there is no evidence that they are competition for Homeowners' Associations. Therefore, this answer choice is wrong: "Homeowners' Associations see short-term rentals as being competition for the market of vacationers."
The fact that short-term rentals experience success would not be an upsetting factor for Homeowners' Associations. Therefore, this answer choice is wrong: "Short-term rentals do not confer a benefit on the Homeowners' Association that is comparable to that conferred on the proprietor of a short-term rental."
There is no evidence in the passage to support either "Short-term rentals directly confer extra fees on Homeowners' Associations" or "Homeowners' Associations, as a general policy, have always looked down upon short-term rentals because they are unsanitary."

While the first paragraph provides background on the short-term rental phenomenon, explaining how the internet aided its spread, the third paragraph addresses the controversies that it has sparked. As a means of transitioning between these two topics, the second paragraph explains the significance of short-term rentals in order to allow the full impact of the controversial issues to be comprehended by the reader. Therefore, the correct answer is "Emphasize the impact that short-term rentals have had on the travel industry, thereby transitioning betwen the first and third paragraphs."
A tempting wrong answer is "Convince the reader that short-term rentals are the most significant development in the realm in which the housing industry and the travel industry intersect." While this sounds like it could be accurate, there is no evidence in the passage to indicate that short-term rentals are "the most significant development in the realm in which the housing industry and the travel industry intersect." The author does not provide sufficient information to justify use of the superlative "most."

Throughout the second paragraph, it is argued that graduate students are being trained to do research. The place of foreign languages in graduate study is justified in light of this training. The correct answer among the options provided is the one that explains what will occur if the students are not able to read foreign languages: the many articles and books written in other languages will be useless because the students will be unable to read them.

For this passage, it is necessary to pay attention to the whole text to find the overall purpose. The very last sentence is particularly revealing: "therefore, in spite of its frustrating aspects, the language examination process is an important component of graduate school education." In the second paragraph, author spends a significant amount of time defending the usefulness of learning other languages in graduate school. At the beginning of this paragraph, he admits that the frustrations are understandable, but nevertheless supports the helpfulness of this system; therefore, the best way to describe the author's purpose is "to defend the language examination system found in graduate schools."

The first paragraph presents a view that is then (indirectly) opposed in the second paragraph. This is signaled by the second paragraph's opening sentence, "Although these frustrations are understandable, . . ."  The second paragraph then continues by providing justifications for the language examinations given in graduate schools. It then closes with the key sentence, "Therefore, in spite of its frustrating aspects, the language examination process is an important component of graduate school education." The first paragraph did concede that these exams are frustrating, providing some reasons for that frustration.

The second paragraph opens by stating that the system of language exams was not created to cause distress for graduate students. It argues that there are indeed justifications for these exams, particularly in view of the research that students will be undertaking. The remainder of the paragraph provides supporting reasons for the importance of languages in preparing graduate students to undertake research. All of this aims to show the reasonableness of this system, in spite of the remarks that were noted in the first paragraph.

The author begins his work from a defensive standpoint, arguing in the first sentence that he has not “overstepped the bounds of neuropathological interest” in investigating and writing about the interpretation of dreams. He then goes on to addresses some of his study’s limitations in the second and third paragraphs. Thus, we can say that the author’s purpose in writing this passage is to “justify his work and address some of its limitations.” None of the other answer choices are supported by the passage.

Of the omissions and substitutions the author made when discussing his own dreams in the work he is describing, the author writes in the third paragraph, “To be sure, I disguised some of my indiscretions through omissions and substitutions, though I feel that these detract from the value of the examples in which they appear.” Thus, while many answer choices sound reasonable, the correct answer is “He feels that the adjusted examples would be more useful had they remained unadjusted.” 

The last sentence of the passage states, “I can only express the hope that the reader of this work, putting himself in my difficult position, will show patience, and also that anyone inclined to take offense at any of the reported dreams will concede freedom of thought at least to the dream life.” Here, the author relates how he hopes the reader will receive his work, suggesting that the reader is mentioned in the correct answer. We can ignore “explain why he made certain redactions to the dreams he later discusses,” as the sentence doesn’t mention this it all—it’s a point made earlier in the last paragraph. The author is not attempting to get the reader to read the work of a variety of psychologists or to conduct his or her own scientific experiments, as neither of these points are mentioned or suggested at all. In choosing between the remaining two answer choices, “emphasize why his work is valuable, despite its flaws” and “get the reader to emphasize with him,” the latter is the best answer. The author is not so much arguing for his work’s value in spite of flaws as he is attempting to get the reader to consider his situation, “putting [him- or herself] in [the author’s] difficult position.”

The author can certainly be called “defensive,” as from the first sentence of the passage, he is attempting to justify his study as worthwhile and legitimate. We can also call him meticulous due to the careful way in which he addresses potential criticisms of his work and details how he selected with care the dreams he discusses in his work. Thus, “defensive and meticulous” is the best answer. While he is attempting to urge the reader to accept his work, "imploring and desperate" is far too strong a description to be accurate. Nothing in the passage suggests that the author is “furious and insulted,” “whimsical and descriptive,” or “unreliable and suspicious.”

The author discusses how he selected dreams to analyze in the third paragraph. About dreams in scientific literature, he says, “The work itself will demonstrate why all dreams related in scientific literature or collected by others had to remain useless for my purpose.” Thus, while some of the answer choices may sound plausible, the passage does not tell us precisely why the author could not use the dreams in scientific literature and does not give us enough information to allow us to claim that one of the listed reasons is in fact the actual reason why the author avoided using these reported dreams. The correct answer is thus “The author does not give a reason for this in the passage, but says that the rest of his work explains why this is the case.”

Internet cafes do not offer any other services, aside from online access, that would enable them to be profitable. 
The crux of the argument is that internet cafes are not successful because the service that they offer -- online access -- is now made available for free by other outlets. However, this argument depends on the assumption that internet cafes do NOT offer any other services that would make them profitable -- such as a community base that would attract clients, or food and beverages that consumers would be interested in buying. 

The argument is based on the premise that landlines are either used for personal or business uses, and that no third use exists for them. Therefore, in order for the argument to hold water, there is an assumption that:Landlines will no longer be necessary for any reason aside from personal or business communication. 

To answer this question, it is necessary to recognize that while appointment criteria are set forth for the board of directors, they are applied to the position of Treasurer. We are never told that a Treasurer is a member of the board of directors. Thus, the conclusion is only warranted if eligibility for appointment to the board is a necessary condition for appointment to the position of Treasurer.

The flawed reasoning used in the passage is that a combination of two "parent" items with different attributes necessarily yields a "child" product having attributes that are averages of its parents' attributes. The correct answer uses parallel reasoning inasmuch as the argument uses the fact that halogen and noble gases differ with respect to toxicity to conclude that a combination of such gases would yield a gas having toxicity that is the average of the toxicity of its "parent" gases.

The correct answer here is the one that does not explain the apparent paradox. That the new unit uses a smaller share of total electricity is consistent with its being more energy efficient. It does not explain how her electric bills could have gone up despite her installation of the more efficient unit; all other answers provide possible resolutions of such apparent paradox. 

The argument assumes that the production of sequels and remakes, which are derived from existing sources of material, conclusively proves the absence of creativity. Thus, the author may not like moves based on toys, but this is because they are derived from an existing source of material - the toy itself. Similarly, the author may agree with the answers criticizing Hollywood, but they do not address the argument’s key assumption. Specifically, they do not link the use of existing source material to a lack of creativity.

Option E is the correct answer bcause it is given in the premise that US should ensure that current consumption level is not increasing for many years in the future and also the world resources are depleting. That clearly indicates that US consumption is the major reason for the depletion. E is exactly that.

The argument presented is that since London's strict air-pollution regulations led to a dramatic increase in the number of bird species seen, similar rules should be imposed in other major cities. Let's analyze each option to identify the correct answer, which is the assumption NOT made in the argument:

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.

This option is not an assumption made in the argument. The argument does not specify the exact source or cause of air pollution in other major cities—it simply assumes that similar regulations would have a positive effect on bird species, regardless of the primary source of pollution.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.

This is an assumption made in the argument. The argument hinges on the belief that regulations targeting industry can lead to improved air quality, as evidenced by the increase in bird species in London.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.

This is an assumption made in the argument. The argument assumes that the air-pollution problems in other major cities are comparable to what London once experienced, implying that similar regulations would yield similar benefits.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.

This is an assumption made in the argument. The argument assumes that an increase in bird species is a positive outcome, indicating environmental improvement.

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

This is an assumption made in the argument. The argument assumes that the increase in bird sightings is due to an actual increase in the bird population, rather than just increased visibility or migration patterns.

Therefore, the correct answer is (A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry. This option does not align with the argument's assumption, as the argument does not specify the exact sources of pollution in other cities but rather focuses on the positive environmental outcomes of regulations.

In the passage, the concern expressed by the U.S. State Department is that if the Socialist party wins the upcoming election in Ganelon, the country might move away from its current pro-American stance. This implies an assumption that a Socialist party government in Ganelon is more likely to oppose the United States compared to a non-Socialist party government. This assumption forms the basis of the concern about the potential political shift in Ganelon affecting its relationship with the United States.

The other options either do not directly relate to the assumption about the Socialist party's stance towards the United States (like options B and C), or they present scenarios that might not necessarily be assumed but rather speculated upon (like options D and E). Therefore, option (A) stands out as the assumption underlying the State Department's concern in the passage.