Verbal Practice Questions - 4 | Mock Test series for GMAT Classic Edition PDF Download

Among philosophers, Hegel is perhaps one of the hardest to read. Stay very close to this text and use context clues from within the passage. Clearly, Hegel is not being presented as an exponent of scientific evolution in the fashion of Darwin. The key portion of the passage is, "A system of stages, the one necessarily arising from the other, and being the nearest truth of that from which it proceeds; but not in such a way that the one is naturally generated by the other." Each stage is the "nearest truth" for the one following it. However, it is not the natural cause of it. Yes, Hegel is strange—and far more cryptic than this small selection. However, we have enough details to get our answer!

This passage opens by framing the discussion in terms of Darwin's Origin of Species. Throughout the passage, it wishes to show how the German Romantics used the word and notion of "evolution" in a way that was radically different from that used by Darwin. In this selection, at least, we are not presented with a rigorous comparison/contrast with positivism, though it is mentioned at the beginning. This whole passage focuses on how certain figures used the term in a way quite different from that of Darwin. (Note, also, that the passage does not provide a complete catalogue of positions.)

In addition to the common use of "romantic" in our day-to-day speech, the word can also mean "idealistic" or "unrealistic." Think of when we speak of a "romanticized portrait" of some event, person, or thing. This implies that it is represented in a way that is not 100% true to the reality, making it seem more "stylized" and perfect than it actually is. This is the meaning here in this passage, for these philosophers had an "ideal" view of evolution, not a realistic one.

This answer is quite clear if you pay attention to two sentences: (1) "It even pretended to be a philosophy of evolution"; (2) "But then the word 'evolution' was to be taken in an ideal, not in a real, sense." The idea is that this "Romantic" philosophy was more of a revelry than a real undertaking of science.

Without getting into the details of Schelling, we do know that "Schelling . . . held the same idea" as Goethe in the latter's Metamorphosen der Pflanzen und der Thiere. This does not mean that it is directly indebted to it. It merely catalogues his thought as yet another example of a Romantic philosopher whose thought is not the same in character as that of Darwin.

Throughout this passage, the author considers the division of labor in an objective light. He is neutral and not particularly biased toward one belief or side of an argument. He cares about his subject and doesn’t appear to be bored by it, so we can’t call his tone “blasé and uncaring.” Furthermore, his tone isn’t notably furious or even emotional, so we can’t call his tone “fervent and emotional” and “furious and kindling outrage.” This leaves us with one answer choice, the correct one: “academic and even.” This best describes the academic, neutral tone that the author uses throughout the passage.

When answering a question asking you to state the main idea of a passage, it is important to select an answer choice to which each paragraph can relate, but that is not broad enough to include many other ideas that the paragraph doesn’t discuss. In this case, the answer choice “While it is easier to observe the division of labor in small-scale industries, considering it in large-scale industries provides a better example of the phenomenon” doesn’t mention pin-making at all. “The division of labor is an important economics concept that should be applied to both small- and large-scale industries” is incorrect because the author is not claiming that the division of labor should be “applied” to industries, but that it is visible in them. This leaves us with two answer choices: “One can observe the division of labor in the pin-making industry” and “Labor has been most improved in its division; the best example of this is in large industries, such as the large-scale manufacturing of pins.” The latter answer is the best choice because it captures the author’s thesis, which he states in the passage’s first sentence, “The greatest improvements in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.” It is also the better answer because it captures the author’s argument about the differences between considering the division of labor in small-scale and large-scale industries.

The word “scarce” is used in the following sentence:
“A workman not educated to this business [of pin making] . . . nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it . . .  could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty.”
It is helpful to pause a moment and consider what kind of word “scarce” is in the sentence. “Scarce,” along with “perhaps” and “with his utmost industry,” describes the verb “make.” So, “scarce” is functioning as an adverb. “Always” and “never” don’t make sense in the sentence; each word is contradicted by the “perhaps” that follows “scarce.” This leaves us with “infrequently” and “hardly.” The combination of “infrequently, perhaps . . . make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty” doesn’t make as much sense as does “hardly,” which works better with the comparison being made. Furthermore, “scarce” cannot mean infrequently, so “hardly” is the best answer choice. This is how the author is using the term in the passage: to state that one person could hardly make a pin in a day, much less twenty.

The passage directly states the answer in its second paragraph, when discussing how the division of labor is visible in large industries: “In those great manufactures . . . which are destined to supply the great wants of the great body of the people, every different branch of the work employs so great a number of workmen that it is impossible to collect them all into the same workhouse,” the author writes. So, the correct answer is “In small industries, all of the different types of workers can be seen in one place, but in large industries, this is not possible.”
This question may be particularly tough because some of the answers are true, such as “Small industries require one person to perform many specific types of work, whereas large industries require a worker to perform only one type of work;” however, we are not looking for the answer that is true, but the answer that is the reason why it is easier to observe the division of labor in small-scale industries rather than in large-scale ones.

Questions that ask you to characterize the sequence of paragraphs in a passage like this may seem overwhelming, so it might be helpful to pause for a moment and consider what each paragraph accomplishes in the passage before considering the available answer choices. In this passage, the first paragraph introduces the topic of the division of labor and talks about how it is visible in small-scale industry. Then, the second paragraph contrasts how the division of labor is visible in large-scale industry with how it is visible in small-scale industry; we can tell that the author is contrasting these points because he begins the second paragraph by saying, “In those great manufactures, on the contrary . . . “ In the third paragraph, the author provides a concrete example; we can tell that he does this by the way he begins the paragraph: “To take an example, therefore, from a very trifling manufacture . . .” Based on this analysis, we can now narrow down the available answer choices and identify the correct one, “The first paragraph introduces the topic and describes small industries; the second paragraph contrasts large industries with small industries; and the final paragraph provides an example.” Some of the other answer choices attempt to confuse you by stating that the consideration of and contrast between small-scale and large-scale industries only occurs in the first or second paragraph, but considering the passage carefully will allow you to see that such consideration and comparison takes place in both paragraphs.

In order to infer what likely “preceded,” or came before, this passage, we should take at what the passage is talking about right when it starts. The passage’s first sentence says, “The examples of protective resemblance so far quoted are mostly permanent adaptations to one particular sort of surrounding.” The “so far quoted” means so far said or provided and tells us that the writer has been talking about “examples of protective resemblance.” This means that the writer most likely discussed “animals that defend themselves by looking like things in a stable environment” in the part of the book that comes right before the passage.

The weasel is mentioned in two places in the passage, both in the passage’s last paragraph, both reproduced here:
“But in winter, the entire coat [of the stoat], save only the tip of the tail, becomes white, and in that condition the animal is known as an ermine. A similar example is afforded by the weasel. The seasonal change in the vegetarian Irish hare is purely of protective character, but in such an actively carnivorous creature as a stoat or weasel, it is aggressive as well, rendering the animal inconspicuous to its prey.”
What does the passage tell us about the weasel? Well, we can infer that it is in some way like the stoat, because the passage says “A similar example is afforded by the weasel” right after describing how the stoat’s fur changes color. We are also told that it is carnivorous, but this is not an inference we have to make, and it doesn’t relate to any of the answer choices. The best answer choice is “Like the stoat, it also changes its coat color.” This captures the specific similarity between the stoat and weasel being discussed when the author writes, “A similar example is afforded by the weasel.”

The passage’s last paragraph provides the information we need to answer this question.  The paragraph begins by describing “the common stoat.” Eventually, it says, “But in winter, the entire coat, save only the tip of the tail, becomes white, and in that condition the animal is known as an ermine.” While this sentence is followed by “A similar example is afforded by the weasel,” this means that the weasel is another example of an animal that changes its fur color, not that a stoat can be called a weasel. It means that a weasel is a distinct type of animal. The correct answer is that a stoat might also be called “an ermine, depending on its fur color.”

When answering questions about a paragraph’s purpose, it’s helpful to consider how it relates to the rest of the passage as a whole, and to consider what each of the other paragraphs do in the context of the passage. For instance, in this passage, the first paragraph transitions from discussing animal adaptations in unchanging environments to discussing animal adaptations in changing environments. The second paragraph talks about Irish hares as an example of animals that change their fur color. So, what is the point of the third paragraph? While it does “provide an example of an animal that goes by two different names depending on its appearance” and “describe the appearance of a stoat in summer,” neither of these is its main point; these are details, and neither seems to relate that much to the points of the previous paragraphs. Stoats and weasels are not described as specifically hunting Irish hares, and the passage describes how their changing fur color helps them be better hunters, not why they have such a hard time hunting, so “to describe why stoats and weasels have a hard time hunting Irish hares in winter” cannot be the correct answer either. The point of the paragraph cannot be “to describe an animal that has adapted to an unchanging environment” either, because it describes stoats and weasels, animals that adapt to changing environments. This leaves us with one answer, the correct one: “to provide an example color-change in animals that is both aggressive and defensive.” The examples of stoats and weasels both fall into this category, which is contrasted with the purely defensive function of color-change in hares in the passage’s last sentence.

The underlined sentence is the last sentence of the third paragraph, “The seasonal change in the vegetarian Irish hare is purely of protective character, but in such an actively carnivorous creature as a stoat or weasel, it is aggressive as well, rendering the animal inconspicuous to its prey. One could reasonably infer that a hare would be vegetarian, so “To provide information about the hare’s diet that the reader may not know” cannot be the correct answer. The section doesn’t aim to help readers empathize with the hare any more than the stoat and weasel, so “To help readers empathize with the hare” cannot be correct either. The sentence doesn’t specifically encourage the reader to do anything; it is merely providing information about certain animals; so, “To encourage the reader to switch to a vegetarian diet” cannot be correct. “To provide insight about what food is available in arctic environments” doesn’t make sense either, because we are not told about the food specifically available in arctic environments; we can’t even assume that there are only plants available, as the stoat and weasel eat meat. That brings us to the correct answer: “To contrast the hare with the stoat and the weasel.” The word “vegetarian” specifically contrasts with the word “carnivorous” used later in the sentence to describe the stoat and weasel. This contrast mirrors the contrast of defensive and aggressive/defensive color-changing adaptations which the author is discussing in the sentence.

The argument assumes that the reason for the appeal of comic books beyond their traditional base of young readers has been the introduction of mature themes. The author expresses no opinion about whether or not this is a good thing. And while it may be true that costumed heroes and villains are inherently appealing to children, this does not relate to the broader appeal of comic books to older readers. Finally, the widespread introduction of comic book characters into movies and television relates to the form of media rather than the age of the audience, which is the author’s main point.

The argument assumes that the only way to ensure humanity’s long-term survival is to find another planet that can sustain us after the sun dies. For that to be true, it must be assumed that alternatives to planetary living, such as space stations, won’t be up to the task. While the other answers may be arguably true, none of them make the case that space travel is vital for our survival.

The argument assumes that knowledge of the death penalty’s certain application will deter criminals from breaking the law. In order for this to be true, it is necessary for criminals to rationally calculate the costs and benefits of their actions. This directly contradicts the assertion that the death penalty has never worked. Observations about the appeals process, the financial costs of incarceration and the failure of rehabilitation all support the main point, but are subordinate to the author’s primary focus on deterrence.

The argument assumes that there are no credible alternatives to unions that can better represent the interests of workers. Although the author states that workplace problems still affect millions, the paragraph emphasizes the composition and organization of unions. Thus, the focus is on the close union-member relationship rather than need. The issues of corruption, along with declining membership and labor unrest are similarly unrelated to this focus.

The sentence is perfectly correct as written, and needs nothing done to it to improve it. Additionally, all the answer choices that do make a change create one or more grammatical issues. The best choice is to leave the sentence as it is written.

The sentence is perfectly correct as written, and needs no improvements made to it. All of the answer choices that do make a change also make the sentence grammatically incorrect in some way. The best choice is to leave the sentence as is.

The sentence is perfectly correct as written and needs no changes made to it in order to improve it. Additionally, the answer choices that do make a change make the sentence gramatically incorrect. The best answer choice is to leave the sentence as it is written.

The sentence is perfectly correct as written, and needs to have no corrections to improve it. Further, the other answer choices all make the sentence grammatically incorrect.

In this case, an appositive comes at the beginning of the sentence, renaming "Richard Melville" as "one such transitional figure" among many. Appositives must be set off by commas from the rest of the sentence if they contain information that is unnecessary for understanding the rest of the sentence. Since taking out the appositive phrase ("One such transitional figure, who worked . . .") yields a complete sentence, the appositive "Richard Melville" must be set apart by commas.

In formal written English, em-dashes (—) or commas are used to set off interrupting phrases. Commas would also be correct if used to set apart the phrase "ever the optimist," but that option is not provided as an answer choice, so the option that uses em-dashes to set apart the phrase is the correct answer.

The correlative conjunctions “either” and “or” get paired together here. In "either . . . or" sentences, the two options being discussed (in this case, going to the toy store and going to the ice cream parlor) must be presented in a grammatically parallel way so that the words following “either” and the words following “or” are parallel phrases. In this case, “to the toy store” and “to the ice cream parlor” are the only options that are parallel; otherwise, you’re comparing apples and oranges.

This is a case in which we need to decide whether to use the word "which" or "that" to introduce the clause set apart from the rest of the sentence by commas. "That" is used to introduce information absolutely necessary to the sentence's meaning, whereas "which" is used to introduce information that would not change the sentence's meaning if it were removed from the sentence. Information that is not crucial to the sentence's meaning is usually set apart by commas.
In this case, the sentence "The last time it snowed, my dad lost control of his car and hit a tree" still makes sense, so we know that the information included between the commas isn't absolutely necessary to the sentence's meaning. Plus, the information in question is being set apart from the rest of the sentence by commas. So, we should use "which," and not "that."

The underlined phrase, a separate clause further explaining the first half of the sentence, does not work as a complet sentence. In order to appropriately fit after "because," the phrase needs to be turned into a complete thought. "Because they had exorbitant costs" is the best choice among the answers.

In the sentence, the word "walking" is a dangling modifier, as it is confusing which noun is modified by the action of "walking into the room." The sentence is written in a way that makes it the conference table, and the word order needs to be moved around to clear this up; therefore, the correct answer choice is "the interviewee's vision was dominated by the conference table."

The use of the word "only" is incorrect in this sentence, as the second part of the sentence makes it clear that the subjects read "only" the individual's author's work. The sentence is written to make it seem like the subjects are the only people reading the author's work. "They read only the author's books" is the answer choice that best fixes the problem.

The correct answer is: "may force them to have a long-distance relationship, which they have never had before," because it is the most efficiently phrased and is grammatically correct. 

The answer choice "may force them to have a long-distance relationship, and they have not had a long-distance relationship before" is incorrect because the phrase "and they have not" is unnecessarily wordy compared to the correct answer. 

The answer choice "may be forcing them to have a long-distance relationship, and that is something they have never had that before" is incorrect because "may be forcing" refers to present action, and Mr. and Mrs. Jeffries have not yet found out where they have been accepted to graduate school.

The answer choice "may be forcing them to have a long-distance relationship, which they have never had that before" is wrong because "which they have never had that before" is grammatically improper.

The answer choice "may force them to have a long-distance relationship and they have never had that before" is somewhat of a run-on sentence, and the correct answer is more succinctly phrased.

Let's take a look at the parts from which this this sentence is composed: we have "No one," a subject, "has ever sailed," a verb, "through the treacherous waters," a prepositional phrase, and then "was able to tell anyone about it afterward," a predicate. This sentence has too many verbs. While there are numerous ways to make this sentence grammatically correct, one way is to make the underlined portion into a subject; that way, the sentence would consist of a subject, followed by a prepositional phrase describing that subject, followed by a predicate. The answer choice "No one who has ever sailed" adds in the subordinate conjunction "who" to make what was a verb ("has ever sailed") into a subordinate clause ("who has ever sailed"), making "No one who has ever sailed through the treacherous waters" one big subject and the sentence grammatically correct. While the other answer choices "No one who will sail" each function as a subject, it introduces the future verb tense that doesn't match the past-tense verb "was able" that appears later in the sentence.

The answer choice "written by poet Langston Hughes, and even today, it is widely regarded as one of the most influential works" is correct because it results in a sentence in which two independent clauses are separated by a conjunction followed by a comma.

The original text and answer choice "written by poet Langston Hughes; and even today, it is widely regarded to be one of the most influential works" uses a semicolon incorrectly. Sentences can be combined with a comma followed by a conjunction or with a semicolon, but not with a semicolon followed by a conjunction.

The answer choices "written by poet Langston Hughes, even today, it is widely regarded as one of the most influential works" and "written by poet Langston Hughes, it is widely regarded, even today, as one of the most influential works" create run-on sentences and are therefore incorrect.

Double quotation marks are conventionally used to indicate speech, and commas are conventionally used inside the quotation marks to separate a line of speech from its dialogue tag. Double quotation marks (without commas) are also conventionally used around a word or term to indicate discussion of that word or term in speech. However, because “prejudice” and “bigotry” are already within a set of double quotation marks here, single quotation marks must be used.

The sentence as written as a complex sentence, and it joins its two parts with a semicolon and the conjunction "but;" however, a compound sentence needs to be joined either by just a semicolon or a conjunction and comma, but not a semicolon and a conjunctionl; therefore the correct answer choice is "Pensions are a complicated financial problem for many municipalities, but many cities have made changes to their pension programs in recent years."

The key issue with the underlined phrase is the simultaneous use of "an" and the plural form "studies." Either the singular "an" or the plural "studies" needs to be changed to make the forms match. "An objective study" is the correct answer choice.

We must compare the chefs to my mother, not to the home-cooked meals.

The use of the preposition "from" in the sentence is very odd. The correct preposition needs to indicate the the "wages" are something the "corporations" give to the "employees." The answer choice that best reflexts this is "to pay for employees' wages."

When trying to determine whether to use who or whom, you can use the following rule: try to substitute “he/him” or “she/her.” If either “he” or “she” sounds correct when substituted, then you need the subjective case of the pronoun, "who," because "he" and "she" are subjective case pronouns. If an objective case pronoun ("him" or "her") sounds correct, you need the objective case pronoun "whom."

It may still seem tricky to determine which pronoun is needed here, as in the sentence as a whole, the pronoun in question appears to be the object of the verb "to choose," but it is the subject of the clause "whoever was the first person to submit his or her resume." In cases such as these, the pronoun case is determined by the role it plays in the clause, not in the entire sentence. This means that in this case, we need "whoever," as the pronoun is the subject of the clause "whoever was the first person to submit his or her resume."

The example sentence expresses a hypothetical condition that is contrary to fact ("I," by definition, am not "you"), and therefore needs to be expressed using verbs in the subjunctive mood. "If" is a usually a good indication that a sentence will be in the subjunctive mood. In the subjunctive, "were" should be used instead of "was." "If I were you, I would leave that job immediately."