Verbal Practice Questions - 3 | Practice Questions for GMAT PDF Download

While the passage begins with the author declaring his intention to "inquire whether the federal government or the state governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people," this is not the only idea that the selection focuses on. The author spends the rest of the passage discussing how governmental authority derives from the people, and how those who oppose the Constitution have forgotten about this in their arguments. The correct answer is thus, "The author compares the federal and state governments, and in doing so, argues that the ultimate source of a government's authority is with the people it governs."

It's not possible to tell what is meant by "These gentlemen" based solely on a consideration of the sentence in which the phrase appears. Considering the context surrounding the phrase is necessary: "The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject, and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error." When we consider the sentence that precedes the one with the specified phrase in it, we can see that "These gentlemen" refers to "The adversaries of the Constitution." It's important to consider the meaning of the whole sentence, and not just pick out the last noun that could potentially be the antecedent.

In the paragraph's second sentence, the author states, "Notwithstanding the different modes in which [the federal and state governments] are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States." The introductory phrase that begins this sentence with "Notwithstanding" tells us that the author is ignoring the fact that the two different forms of government are appointed in different ways, so "The different ways in which officials are elected" is the correct answer.

In the fourth sentence, the author states, "The federal and state governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes." This supports the answer choice "The author thinks that the state and federal governments have been granted different powers in order to accomplish different goals." 
The preceding quotation contradicts the answer choice "The author thinks that the state and federal governments were designed to do the same things." "The author thinks that only state governments have their power checked by the American people" is incorrect because the passage later states, "the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other"; both state and federal governments thus have their power checked by the people. The answer "The author views the state and federal government as being rivals and enemies" is incorrect because the author is opposing those who "have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies"; these are the people he is referring to in the line, "These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error." Finally, "The author thinks that only the federal government wants to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction" is incorrect because while he discusses the possibility of both state and federal governments trying "to enlarge [their] sphere[s] of jurisdiction at the expense of the other"

We can infer that the author of this passage supports the Constitution for a number of reasons. On one hand, he refers to "The adversaries of the Constitution" as "These gentleman" in the sentence "These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error." Since the author is not including himself with "these gentlemen," he is not including himself with the Constitutions' adversaries, so he does not oppose it. In saying that they need to be "reminded of their error," he is suggesting that the adversaries of the Constitution are wrong in some respect, providing evidence that he probably supports the constitution and opposes its adversaries. 

The article is written with a heavy-handed favoritism towards Rwanda becoming a member of the CISG. This is especially apparent in the opening and closing paragraphs. Therefore, the correct answer is "Explain why Rwanda should become a member of the CISG."

The phrase, "heated discussion" appears in the last paragraph in this sentence: "There has been heated discussion as to whether Rwanda should sign the CISG." Given the context in which the phrase appears, it seems to mean that strong arguments are being made both for and against membership in the CISG. As such, "strong debate" is the best answer, as the discoure is not emotional, is not characerized as being combative, nor unfair, and there is no indication that "intense persuasion" is being utilized. 

The purpose of the second paragraph is to "provide an example that makes an abstract concept easier to understand." In fact, the second paragraph discusses the scenario of a trade arrangement between Uganda and China in order to show the practial applications of the CISG. The purpose of the second paragraph is also signaled in the last sentence of the first paragraph, which reads, "To help make this concept more tangible, consider the following hypothetical."

The correct answer is, "It would be to Rwanda's benefit to join the CISG."
A tempting wrong answer is "It is imperative that Rwanda join the CISG in order to avoid impending trade disputes that could prove to be disastrous." However, this is not correct because the author does not take such an extreme position. While the author believes it would be in Rwanda's favor to join the CISG, there is no indication that the author foresees disastrous results if Rwanda foregoes joining. 
The other answer choices state positions that are directly contrary to the author's arguments: 
"The CISG has a narrow window of applicability," is wrong because the author argues that the CISG is broadly applicable. 
"Although joining the CISG has benefits, Rwanda ultimately should not join the CISG," is wrong because the author states that Rwanda should join the CISG. 
"There are positive and negative aspects that Rwanda should weigh and balance when deciding whether to join the CISG," is wrong because the author does not argue that Rwanda should weigh and balance positives and negatives, but rather states that Rwanda should simply join.

When answering questions about a passage’s purpose or main idea, it’s important to pick an answer choice that is broad enough to encompass the entire passage. For instance, while the Polytmus’ feeding habits are discussed in the passage, it can’t be said to be the purpose of the passage, since it’s only mentioned as a small detail. The passage can’t be said to critique the opinions of other scientists, because for the most part, the author quotes findings by scientists with whom he does not disagree. A definitive experiment is never proposed, and captive hummingbirds are never discussed. The passage does provide the opinions of scientists on what hummingbirds eat; this accurately captures the intent of the entire passage, not just some of its parts, and doesn’t state it too broadly.

Let’s consider each of the answer choices to identify the correct one.
“The author is the first scientist to ever have investigated what hummingbirds eat.” - This cannot be true, because the author begins the passage by saying “The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects.” He also cites numerous other scientists’ opinions throughout the passage, so he can’t be the first person to have investigated what hummingbirds eat.
“Fly-catchers are a type of insect.” - The passage mentions fly-catchers in the following sentence: “Many [hummingbirds] in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig.” This is a tricky answer choice in that it’s easy to misread the sentence and think that “just like flycatchers” refers to “other small insects” when in fact it refers to the act of “catching.” The sentence is saying that hummingbirds catch insects in the same manner as fly-catchers, not that fly-catchers are a type of insect. Plus, we are being asked to identify an inference readers are expected to make, and if this sentence did mean that fly-catchers were insects, it would be overtly telling us this, and there would be nothing we’d have to infer.
“Scientists rarely learn about hummingbirds by dissecting them.” - This answer choice is proven wrong by the following sentence: “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.”
“If a hummingbird eats gnats, it will not eat honey.” - Given that the questions of whether hummingbirds eat insects or honey and in what proportions is the topic of the passage, it may be easy to choose this answer choice because it seems like the one closest to the passage’s main idea; however, nothing in the passage supports this assertion.
“If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.” - This is the correct answer! The author initially states that “All the early writers down to Buffon believed that [hummingbirds] lived solely on the nectar of flowers”; however, he later states that “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.” The author does not address the idea that flower nectar and honey could be different substances, and instead expects the reader to treat these as one source of food.

Seeing the word “evolutions” in a science passage may bring specific things to mind—Darwin, natural selection, and survival of the fittest, perhaps. However, it’s always important to consider how the word is used in the passage provided. Words with very strong common meanings may be used for their more obscure secondary meanings in order to trick you. The passage uses the word “evolutions” in this sentence: 
“[Other hummingbirds] come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose.”
If the word “evolutions” weren’t used here and there were instead a blank space in the sentence, what kind of word would you use to fill it in? Maybe something like “motions” or “behavior,” right? With that in mind, let’s consider the answer choices. “Modifications,” which may seem to be most in line with the typical meaning of “evolution,” doesn’t make sense in the sentence’s context. Neither does “rebellions” or “ideas.” Choosing between “movements” and “rotations,” nothing tells us that the hummingbirds are specifically “rotating,” so the best answer choice is the more general “movements.”

To answer this question, we have to consider the quotation attributed to Mr. Gosse found at the end of the passage:
“Mr. Gosse also remarks, ‘All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.’”
He doesn’t mention anything about having a collection of live insects, getting his information from a scientific journal, or dissecting a hummingbird’s stomach, so we can ignore those answer choices. He actively observes a hummingbird and surmises that they eat insects because of that, so the correct answer is “He observed one flailing around in the air and concluded that it was eating insects.”

Let’s consider what Mr. Gosse is saying. The passage says, “Mr. Gosse also remarks, ‘All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.’”  Paraphrasing that, Mr. Gosse is saying that he has seen hummingbirds contort themselves in the air and he’s pretty sure they’re doing this in order to catch insects. The evidence provided by scientists earlier in the passage supports the idea that hummingbirds eat insects, just like Mr. Gosse’s does. We can’t say that Gosse’s evidence contradicts the earlier evidence, suggests that some of it may be false, or has nothing to do with the previous evidence. It also doesn’t suggest that the previous evidence can be applied to birds other than hummingbirds, because Mr. Gosse says that he is only discussing hummingbirds and we are to infer that the Polytmus is a hummingbird. So, the correct answer is that “it supports the same conclusions that the previous evidence supports.”

The argument assumes that declining readership, which leads to declining advertising revenue, makes it financially impossible for newspapers and magazines to survive. This can only be true if there are no other sources of revenue to offset these losses. Arguments about which news source is better are irrelevant since the author does not address the issue of quality. Similarly, the First Amendment argument is irrelevant since freedom of the press deals with political expression rather than business viability, which is the author’s main concern.

The argument assumes that functioning government existed in the past and that the current situation is unprecedented. Attributing blame to one particular party directly contradicts the author. Similarly, the idea that government can never get anything done is at odds with the premise that normal, functioning government actually is possible. Furthermore, the patriotism of the nation’s founders is not relevant to the argument. In addition, the author neither states nor implies anything about what will happen in the future. Only the correct answer reflects the author’s view that the current situation is an aberration.

The argument assumes that it is impossible for sports teams and taxpayers to equally benefit from the municipal funding of stadiums. In the author’s view, one side will win and the other will lose. In light of this, the correct answer clearly reflects this assumption. Issues of morality and manipulation of the system are separate from the cost-benefit analysis implied by the author’s basic assumption. The answer stating the importance of schools and city services does imply such an analysis, but does not relate to the specific issue of stadium funding. Finally, the answer mentioning the economic benefits of subsidizing stadium construction directly contradicts the author’s contention that this is a bad idea.

The argument assumes that unions have outlived their usefulness. For this to be true, there must be nothing left for them to do. Thus, the issues of union leader motivation, decreased productivity and fewer labor strikes are all irrelevant to the issue of usefulness. Finally, the answer stating that unions still have much to do in the workplace directly contradicts the author’s main assumption.

The argument assumes that government regulation and “red tape” are unequivocally harmful. Therefore, the best answer is the one that compares regulation to its opposite - deregulation. While the author might agree that the global economy has made us all more vulnerable and that “survival of the fittest” is the organizing principle, these answers do not address the issue of deregulation. Similarly, the observation that deregulation imposes other serious costs directly challenges the author’s main assumption. This is also the case with the answer that attributes foreign success to reasons other than deregulation, which is the author's primary focus.

The argument assumes that there is a correlation between morality and helping the vulnerable since this is what the author is recommending to promote moral development. Although political and economic power are related, this observation lacks the essential component of morality. Likewise, the assertion that people undergoing hardship must learn to endure is true, but it also omits any reference to morality. Similarly, the answer noting the existence of “haves” and “have-nots” addresses the reason there are vulnerable members of society, but says nothing about the moral imperative of helping them. Finally, the author neither advocates nor implies that any criteria be applied to determine which members of society are most worthy of help.

The argument claims that employee ownership and hiring QualiCo Advertising Agency made Mainline Airways more profitable, but it has a weak point.

Key Weak Point:
Option A: "It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainline’s profits, on the other."

Explanation: The argument assumes that employee ownership and the advertising agency caused the profit increase, but it doesn't provide evidence to prove this causal relationship.
Other Options:
Option B: No evidence comparing employee-owned airlines' profitability to others is irrelevant to the specific claim about Mainline.
Option C: Assuming future profits will continue to rise is not the main flaw discussed.
Option D: Lack of exact profit figures does not address the causation issue.
Option E: How profits are calculated is less relevant to the argument’s main point.

Conclusion:
Option A best describes the weak point because the argument lacks evidence of causation between the changes at Mainline and the increase in profits.

The passage discusses the exclusionary rule, which prevents courts from considering evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. The author criticizes this rule for impeding law enforcement, even when the rights violation is minor or technical, and suggests that evidence obtained in good faith by police officers should not be excluded.

Given this perspective, the author would likely support a change to the exclusionary rule that allows for the admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith. This aligns with the concern expressed about the rule's current application being too strict and leading to guilty defendants being set free.

Thus, the most likely endorsement by the author is:

(C) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith.

Explanation: This proposal addresses the author's concern by modifying the exclusionary rule to be more lenient in cases where police officers acted in good faith, thereby preventing guilty defendants from being released due to technicalities. This matches the author's critique and suggested solution.

The argument states that if the government stops allowing tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues, the companies would pay more taxes. This, in turn, would lead to higher prices for tobacco products, which would discourage tobacco use.

For this argument to hold, it is necessary that tobacco companies respond to the increased tax burden by raising prices, rather than finding other ways to offset the increased taxes (e.g., by cutting costs elsewhere).

Thus, the additional premise required by the argument is:

(D) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.

Explanation: If tobacco companies could offset the higher taxes by reducing costs in other areas, they might not need to raise prices. This would undermine the argument's claim that the tax change would lead to higher prices and, consequently, discourage tobacco use. Therefore, premise D is necessary for the argument to be valid.