Verbal Practice Questions - 5 | Mock Test series for GMAT Classic Edition PDF Download

The only date discussed in the passage appears in the second paragraph, when the author refers to “the extinction of this helpless bird in less than a century after its first discovery in 1598.” As this is referring to the extinction of the dodo, it means that the dodo had to have gone extinct some time before 1698. The only answer choice that is a date before 1698 is 1654, so “1654” is the correct answer.

The underlined sentence appears at the end of the first paragraph and reads, “Anyone who has pursued our native land-rail or corn-crake with intent to capture will have noted how extremely difficult it is even to get within sight of a bird of this sort.”

This is the only sentence in the passage that mentions the land-rail and corn-crake, so “to introduce a discussion of the land-rail and corn-crake” cannot be the correct answer. The author doesn’t tell us that he himself has pursued a land-rail or corn-crake, and while one might infer this, he doesn’t say anything about having failed to catch one, so “to make himself feel better about having never been able to catch a land-rail or corn-crake” doesn’t seem to be the correct answer either. The answer choice “to suggest that more people hunt land-rails and corn-crakes “ cannot be correct, as the author isn’t urging the reader to do anything in this sentence; it is simply conveying information. 

This leaves us with two answer choices: “to explain how other types of running birds differ from the African ostrich” and “to provide an example likely familiar to readers of how effective a running bird’s defenses can be.” While the first of these answer choices may seem correct at first glance, the author isn’t actually mentioning the land-rail and corn-crake to explain how other types of running birds differ from the African ostrich. He does this in a previous sentence. It is more accurate to say that the underlined sentence “provide[s] an example likely familiar to readers of how effective a running bird’s defenses can be.”

The author mentions the proverb “as extinct as a dodo” in the second paragraph, when he states, “[The dodo’s] memory is now only kept green by a few contemporary drawings and descriptions, certain museum remains, and the proverb ‘as extinct as a dodo.’” The author is clearly not mentioning the proverb in order to “lament that the dodo was not eliminated sooner”; we can tell this from the rest of the paragraph as well, in that he is saddened that it went extinct at all. The author isn’t urging his readers to do anything, so he can’t be using the proverb to “encourage his readers to use more figurative language.” He doesn’t begin to discuss the ways in which common sayings reference birds after this point, so it doesn’t make any sense to say that he uses the proverb as a transition to such a discussion. This leaves us with two answer choices: that he mentions the proverb to “support the idea that the dodo went extinct because of human influence” and that he does so to “provide an example of what little is left of the dodo in his era.” While this may seem like a somewhat tricky choice, it is important to realize that at this point, the author has made the point that the dodo went extinct due to human influence in an earlier sentence, and this sentence doesn’t mention the reasons why the dodo went extinct at all—it’s talking about what is left over now that the dodo is extinct. This means that the correct answer is that the author mentions this proverb in order to “provide an example of what little is left of the dodo in his era.”

Examining the two paragraphs, one can find that the first one talks about ostriches and rails, two types of flightless birds that adapted in specific ways to be good at fleeing predators. The second paragraph tells the story of the dodo, a flightless bird that did not have time to develop such adaptations. From here, we can pick out the correct answer: “The first paragraph describes flightless birds that learned to defend themselves from predators by fleeing them; the second paragraph describes a flightless bird that did not adapt in this way.”
As for the other answer choices, nothing in the passage discusses people eating birds, so we can ignore the answer choice “The first paragraph describes birds people eat; the second describes birds people do not eat.” The answer choice “The first paragraph describes a type of flightless birds that has gone extinct; the second describes species of flightless birds that are still living” would be correct if it flipped around the paragraphs to which it refers, but as it is written, it is incorrect. The passage doesn’t say anything about the predators of flightless birds in the first paragraph or the prey of flightless birds in either paragraph, so “The first paragraph discusses predators of flightless birds, the second describes prey of flightless birds” cannot be correct, and since the first paragraph does not provide a personal anecdote, “The first paragraph provides a personal anecdote while the second paragraph provides historical information” cannot be correct either.

Ostriches and rails are discussed in the first paragraph. The author says that “For straightforward retreat in open country nothing could be more effective; but another kind of adaptation is required in birds like rails, which are deficient in powers of flight, and yet are able to run through thickly-growing vegetation with such rapidity as to commonly elude their enemies.” The passage then goes on to detail how rails have thin bodies that allow them to dart through the grass. This means that the correct answer is “ostriches run over open terrain whereas rails run through thick grass.” 

The passage is describing the rail, a type of bird, and not using the word “rail” to describe part of a train track or a barrier on an elevated area, so “ostriches are living things whereas rails are inanimate objects” cannot be correct. Ostriches are never said to be smaller than rails or predators, so neither “ostriches are smaller than rails” nor “ostriches use their running abilities to catch prey, whereas rails use their running abilities to avoid predators” can be correct. Finally, rails are said to live in areas containing and have adapted to “thickly-growing vegetation” and ostriches are said to have developed a different adaptation suited to “open country,” so “ostriches live in grassy areas whereas rails live in the desert” cannot be correct either.

The expression "poetic echo" clearly is meant to evoke the sound of canons echoing. It is said to be "poetic" because such canon fire seems to be something very positive to many people during Emerson's day. It is implied that it has a certain charm or beauty—that is, a certain kind of poetry.

This passage does combat a certain kind of love of militarism, but that is not the main point of the text. In contrasting such militarism with the sciences and intellectual life, Emerson wishes to draw to light the importance of the intellectual life for culture. He then closes this section by proposing the duties incumbent upon all who believe such a position regarding the intellectual life.

This expression evocatively uses "feebleness" as an adjective to describe strength. The implication is that such strength is ultimately weak. It relativizes such strength—for it is a kind of strength—putting it in its rightful and limited place. That is, it acknowledges the many weaknesses of the seeming might of military valor.

This paragraph opens up with the clear structure of presenting a set of contrasts. "Against the heroism of soldiers" the author sets ("presents") "the heroism of scholars." He then lists such a set of contrasts. In the actual essay, he then goes on to discuss some figures at length, using them as images of the kind of intellectual culture he wishes to praise in this passage.

The paragraph opens by trying to stay out of the "fracas" (noisy place of disturbances) of politics. It continually comes back to the fact that Emerson wishes to focus upon the life of the mind and not the "feebleness of military strength." The contrast is thus between the more militaristic life of the modern day and the life of the intellect with its own undertakings.

Only two of these answer choices are wholly incorrect—the author does not argue that William II is a danger to the rest of Europe, nor does he suggest that William II is of foreign birth. Once you have eliminated those two answer choices it becomes a case of selecting which answer choice is best. The author spends a great deal of time focusing on the rare virtues that William II possesses and this seems to be the primary theme of this text: that William is a rare emperor in his time. The author does not outright suggest that William II is the greatest or most powerful ruler, so this answer choice can also be eliminated as not the best. Finally, the author does mention William’s excessive frankness, but this is far from the main idea of the text. On the other hand, that William is a rare and virtuous ruler who embodies the best German qualities seems to be an argument that the author maintains throughout. This is best seen in excerpts such as “He is popular in Germany, and it is not surprising, for, in spite of being autocratic to the last degree, he is honest, courageous, ambitious, hard working, and a thorough German, being intensely patriotic. Indeed, if the people of Germany had the right to vote, they would undoubtedly choose their present ruler, for, while the virtues we have named may seem commonplace, they are not so when embodied in an emperor.”

The word “conspicuous” usually means obvious, easily noticed, or not well-hidden. However, in this context it is used slightly differently. The author says, "at the same time, he has qualities which are to be admired and which make him conspicuous among the rulers of Europe.” From the author’s later comments that William II’s virtues “may seem commonplace, [but] are not so when embodied in an emperor," we can reasonably determine that, in context, the author is talking how William II’s admirable qualities make him “unusual” among European rulers. To provide further help, “concealed” means hidden, and “demonstrative” means demonstrating something or showy and emotional.

It is clear from the whole of this passage that the author has a great and deep respect for William II. The author seems to be defending William for what he views as his unfair treatment by the media of the rest of Europe and America and goes to great lengths to show how William is a virtuous man and a great leader for Germany. His tone is therefore best described as one of “reverence,” which means deep respect. To provide further help, “frankness” is excessive honesty, often to the point of being rude; “condescension” is talking down to someone; and “admonishment” is scolding or punishment.

The author discusses William II’s militarism at length when he says, “He believes in militarism . . . in this he is right, for it has taken two hundred and fifty years to bring Prussia to the position it now holds, and what it has gained at the point of the sword must be retained in the same way . . . and with France on one side and Russia on the other, there really seems to be ample excuse for it.“ The only answer choice that is missing from this excerpt is a mention of the threat of religious heresy; indeed, throughout the whole passage, the author makes no mention of religion, so we can comfortably suggest this is not an argument employed by the author.

The author talks at length about how William II is honest, frank, hard-working, industrious, learned, and with great respect for intelligence. But, none of these answer choices really explains wholly why William II is widely loved and respected in Germany. The author does note, “Indeed, if the people of Germany had the right to vote, they would undoubtedly choose their present ruler, for, while the virtues we have named may seem commonplace, they are not so when embodied in an emperor.” So, the combination of all the traits listed above are what constitute William II’s main appeal to the people of Germany.

This appositive clause (that John Smith is a notable economist at a certain university) is necessary to understand the meaning of the sentence; therefore, it must not be surrounded by commas. If it is surrounded by commas, the identify of the John Smith in the sentence is still not known because he has several other colleagues that go by the same name. Presumably, identifying him as "the notable economist" removes this ambiguity.

The use of dashes to set off the parenthetical phrase explaining what the least possible world is (rather than simply renaming it, as an appositive phrase set off by commas would do) is the best solution for this sentence.

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

The correlative conjunctions “neither” and “nor” belong together. In "neither . . . nor" sentences, the two options (“pleased with their poor work” and “willing to accept their rowdy behavior”) must be presented in a grammatically parallel way so that the words following “neither” and the words following “nor” are parallel phrases.

The example sentence makes use of an incorrect conjunction. "Such" is used to indicate a result, whereas "so" is used (as a conjunction) to indicate purpose. Because the sentence is discussing someone's precautionary measure, the correct conjunction here is "so". "She carefully reviewed her case notes, so as not to be surprised in court."

As the context implies, "while" is the appropriate subordinating conjunction to use in both places; however, it is worth noting that, in the credited response, it is used in two different senses—first to indicate a sort of concession or piece of important information that will find a contrast later, and later in the sentence to indicate a time when something was happening. Finally, the subordinate clause that begins the sentence should be separated from the main clause by a comma.

The question is an example of a dangling modifier. The dependent clause must modify the subject of the independent clause. In this case, the subject that it modifies (ostensibly, a hiker of some sort) is absent from the sentence. The correct version includes a subject that agrees with the modifying dependent clause.

The sentence is perfectly correct as written; no changes are needed. Additionally, every answer choice that does make a change makes the sentence grammatically incorrect. The correct answer choice is to leave the sentence alone.

The word "happy" in the original sentence is modifying "the dog's food", when we know it should be modifying the dog instead.

The key word to consider when answering this question is the conditional word "could" in the last portion of the sentence. Because the forecasted shop drop in oil prices is discussed in conditional terms after the comma, it must also be discussed in conditional terms before the comma, and in the way the sentence is presented, it is not. The only answer choice that features appropriate wording is "Forecasters warn that a sharp drop in oil prices"; the "that" allows for the conditional, in the sense of the forecasters warning that if a sharp drop in oil prices occurs, it could have dire consequences for the world economy.

The underlined phrase functions as a comparison in the sentence, between humans and "most animals." Thus, the phrase needs to appropriately compare in the same manner as the other mention of the trait in the sentence. "Than humans" is the correct answer choice. The "did" is an extraneous verb that introduces an error by being in the past tense when the verb that appears prior to it in the sentence, "have," is in the present tense.

The chief issue with the sentence as it is written is the lack of any verb. "Having" is a gerund, a noun formed from a verb. The best way to correct the sentence, and give it the same meaning, is to essentially reverse the phrases and add a verb in the middle. "The novelist's excellent depictions of characters demonstrate he has a command of details." is the best answer choice.

The comma inserted in the underlined portion of the sentence between "margins" and "over" is unnecessary. The full phrase should run continuously without interruption, as it is all one thought. The only answer choice with appropriate punctuation is "in profit margins over the final quarter of the year."

As it is written, the sentence is perfectly correct with its usage and grammar. Every answer choice that does make a change to the sentence creates some grammatical or usage problem in the sentence. The correct answer choice is to leave the sentence as is.

The example sentence contains two apostrophe errors. First, "it's" in this case is a contraction of "it is." "Its" (with no apostrophe) is used to signal the possessive (e.g. "the machine performed its function"). The most correct, and appropriately formal, version of this sentence would use "it is."

The travelers' "plans" are in this case simply plural, so no apostrophe is needed. "Plan's" would only be used to signal that something belonged to the plans.

The final phrase of the sentence contains a problem with the pronoun "their" and its antecedent, "group." Because "every group" is a singular noun, it later needs to be referenced with a singular pronoun and verb, although the sentence already uses the appropriate verb form. The only answer choice which has appropriate agreement between all of the words is "every group of representatives was in its correct place on the stage."

No changes need to be made to the sentence, as it is grammatically correct. All the answer choices that do make a change create a grammatical issue. The correct answer choice is to leave the sentence as it is written.

Two singular subjects connected by "or," "either . . . or," or "neither . . . nor" require a singular verb.

Calories can be counted, and so we use the word "fewer." "Less" is for quantities that cannot be counted, such as water.  

Comparative prepositions (like "senior" or "junior") are followed by "to", not than, from, or against. The correct version of the sentence reads, "Even though we started on the same day, at this point Robert is junior to me in the company."

The example sentence includes an inconsistent use of pronouns. The use of the neutral third-person pronoun "one" cannot be followed within the sentence by the second-person pronoun "you." Pronouns must remain consistent within sentences, so starting with "one" means that "one" must remain the pronoun. The correct version of the sentence reads, "When one is trying to learn a new skill it is important to control one's ego."

"Shown" is a past perfect verb, and any past perfect construction cannot stand alone as the verb in the sentence without a helping verb, also known as an auxilary verb. The past perfect verb "shown" needs to be accompanied by the verb "have" to make it a complete verbal phrase. Therefore, the correct answer choice is "Traditionally, movie audiences have shown favor towards lighter fare."

“Believing” would constitute an incorrect gerund usage. “Me” must be changed to “I” because it is the nominative case pronoun.

The sentence implies that a single female author wrote the Scivas; however, the first clause mentions two women. To resolve the potential ambiguity that "her," which could refer to either Teresa or Hildegard, would introduce, the name of the author must be used rather than a pronoun. "They," which is commonly used in vernacular English to refer to a subject whose gender is either unknown or not specified, is only used to refer to plural antecedents according to the strict rules of standard written English. Finally, as only one work (the Scivas) is mentioned in the passage, the pronoun referring to it must also be singular.

The use of the present participle verb forms "showing" and "calling" is incorrect in the underlined portion of the sentence. Both words need to be in the past tense to show that the poll was taken before oil prices had begun falling. The only answer choice which appropriately makes these corrections is "showed only a small percentage of experts called for such a drop."