Test: Verbal Aptitude - 2 - GMAT MCQ

The text is primarily concerned with showing the ancient origin of modern currency and underlines the touchstone’s importance within this history; therefore, choice (B) is correct.
Choice (A) is too broad—the passage is concerned only with currency, not science in general.
Conversely, choice (C) is too narrow; the passage talks about the touchstone’s historical importance, not just the science behind it.
The passage does not discuss where the word came from, so choice (D) is incorrect.
Choice (E) is also wrong because there is no historical misconception that needs to be cleared up.

Choice (C) accurately describes the reason for including the details concerning the inclusion of lesser metals in early coins: It takes the details of how the touchstone works and shows why the touchstone was important for trade. The passage does not state how individuals previously tested metals, so choice (A) cannot be true.

Choice (B) is also incorrect because the date given in the passage is of the earliest use of coins; it does not talk about the date of the touchstone. The purpose of the sentence is not to give a cultural context because the passage does not identify the cultures involved, so eliminate choice (D). There is no counterargument given, making choice (E) incorrect.

Choices (I) and (III) are supported by the phrases this probing process allowed merchants to examine alloys quickly and with reasonable certainty. You know that the certainty referred to is about adulterated coins because the passage later mentions that coins were easily forged or diluted.

Choice (II) is incorrect because although the passage does mention standardization, it does not mention speciɹcally that it would be a function of the government.

If the claims of the passage are correct, then which of the following best explains why the interpretation of X in conjunction with the negation of Y was eliminated as claimed from the highlighted text?

a) Most of the subjects of the 1998 study recognized that cigarette taxes tend to decrease adolescent smoking.
b) Most of the subjects of the 1998 study interpreted X so as to also include the additional information of Y (as "X and Y " or "Z").
c) Subjects of the 1998 study preferred winning $50 to winning less amount.
d) Subjects of the 1998 study who bet on X would win $50 only if Y turned out to be true.
e) Subjects of the 1998 study who bet on X could have won the $50 whether or not Y turned out to be false.

Notice this part,
Other researchers would claim, correctly, that subjects shown Z("Y and X") and X simultaneously will sometimes think of X as involving the negation of Y - as a claim that the percentage of adolescent smokers in Texas will decrease, but without the $1.00 increase in the cigarette tax.

That X can be a function of Y and can depend on Y's outcome. This possibility was ruled out. X stopped being dependent on Y.
The interpretation of X in conjunction with the negation of Y was eliminated so that the Subjects of the 1998 study who bet on X could have won the $50 whether or not Y turned out to be false. Still many of them went to select Z.

E is the answer

Something about the $50 bet eliminated the "interpretation of X in conjunction with the negation of Y". Choice (E) adequately explains why that would be.
And why did the author want to eliminate that interpretation (moving on to Question 3)? Because it would lead to an alternative explanation for the study results: maybe the subjects DID correctly understand that Z can't be more probably than X, but they picked Z because they thought picking "X" actually meant picking "X will occur and Y will not".
By eliminating that and other alternative explanations (e.g. the stuff about taking "probability" in a sense that does not conform to the mathematical principles of probability), the author strengthens support for the "conjunction fallacy" (i.e. that the study subjects exhibited a mistaken form of reasoning).
In other words, the author shoots down the alternative explanations in order to "counter the claim of some researchers that the conjunction fallacy is less frequently committed than various studies would seem to indicate". So choice (D) is correct

(A): "The possibility of research subjects interpreting 'probability' so as not to conform to the mathematical principles, and their interpretation of X to include additional information."
This matches the two main issues addressed by the use of bets:
Subjects might interpret "probability" in non-mathematical ways (like "confirmation").
Subjects might interpret X as excluding Y, introducing additional information.
Correct Answer: This is the most accurate description of the purpose of the bets.

(B): "The possibility of research subjects interpreting 'probability' so as not to conform to the mathematical principles, and the lack of motivation of some of the subjects."
The passage does not mention lack of motivation as a concern or reason for using bets.
Motivation is irrelevant to explaining the conjunction fallacy in this context.
Incorrect: "Lack of motivation" is not a factor.

(C): "Failure of research subjects to recognize that adolescent smoking could decrease even when the cigarette tax remains the same."
This is related to one of the fallacy's misinterpretations (X being taken as excluding Y), but it does not cover the full scope of issues addressed by the bets.
The bets were also used to address non-mathematical interpretations of "probability," which is not captured here.
Incorrect: This is too narrow and misses a major point.

(D): "The interpretation of X by some study subjects to include additional information and their lack of concentration on the assigned tasks."
The bets did address the issue of interpreting X to include additional information.
However, lack of concentration is not mentioned in the passage as a concern.
Incorrect: "Lack of concentration" is unsupported.

(E): "The fact that some of the research subjects did not commit the conjunction fallacy."
The passage emphasizes that many subjects still committed the conjunction fallacy, even with bets.
The purpose of the bets was not to explain why some subjects avoided the fallacy, but to eliminate alternative explanations for why others committed it.
Incorrect: This misrepresents the purpose of the bets.

Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The correct answer to this inference question will be a statement with which Lessing must agree. Because the author appears to embrace Lessingʼs argument wholeheartedly, the correct answer will echo the authorʼs points in paragraphs three or four as well.
Step 2: Research the Relevant Text
Lessingʼs answers to the troubling questions raised by “successful” forgeries are given in paragraph three. There, the author explains that Lessing judges art on both its technical and aesthetic qualities (those “perceptible on the pictureʼs surface”) and its intangible qualities, such as originality and vision. Lessing considers these independent; thus, an aesthetically superior work may be inferior as art because of deficiencies in its intangible qualities.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
The correct answer will follow from what your research revealed. Find the answer in which a painting is simultaneously aesthetically superior and artistically lacking.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(A) captures the prediction perfectly. In the passage, the author explains that, using Lessingʼs criteria, one can acknowledge van Meegerenʼs aesthetic excellence even while questioning his workʼs artistic value.
(B) is Out of Scope. Neither Lessing nor the author ever mentions an artworkʼs financial value.
(C) is Extreme and Out of Scope. The author uses the fact that museums and critics were fooled by van Meegerenʼs erstwhile Vermeer as background to the troubling questions of a forgeryʼs artistic merit. Lessing, as far as you know from the passage, doesnʼt offer art museums advice of any kind.
(D) is a Distortion. The passage provides adequate information to draw a conclusion about how Lessing would compare van Meegerenʼs forgery to an original Vermeer. It doesnʼt address how he would rank the van Meegeren work in relation to any other pieces of art.
(E) distorts Lessingʼs criteria by reversing the terms. From the passage, Lessing judges some aesthetically superior works (the van Meegeren forgery, for example) to be artistically inferior because they lack originality and vision. Nothing is said of how Lessing would assess aesthetically inferior works. Notice the Formal Logic at work here. The passage indicates that Lessing does not consider aesthetic merit sufficient for great art. He may, however, still regard it as necessary. That canʼt be determined from the information given

The reactions of the art critics: Praise and enthusiasm over an art thinking it be original but then embarrassment on knowing it be forgery even though the art piece remains the same.
Let us see the choices
(A) lovers of a musical group contemptuously reject a tribute album recorded by various other musicians as a second-rate imitation
Lovers of musical group are aware of the album being recorded by other musicians. So, is not analogous
(B) art historians extol the work of a little-known painter as innovative until it is discovered that the painter lived much more recently than was originally thought
The work still remains innovative as the painter remains the same.
(C) diners at a famous restaurant effusively praise the food as delicious until they learn that the master chef is away for the night
Here, diners praise the food thinking it to be made by the master chef but realize it has not been prepared by the master chef. Analogy: Diner - art critics; food - art; master chief - original painter; cook who prepared the food - forger;
Keep it as it does follow the analogy to some extent.
(D) literary critics enthusiastically applaud a new novel until its author reveals that its central symbols are intended to represent political views that the critics dislike
Does not follow the analogy. literary critics can be art critics and novel can replace the art piece. But forger and forgery do not have analogy.
(E) movie fans evaluate a particular movie more favorably than they otherwise might have because their favorite actor plays the lead role.
Clearly not analogous.

This argument is of type X ->Y where X is DS and Y is mosquitoes repelled.
We can strengthen the argument in two ways :
Either we limit out other choices which can result in Y or we can provide additional evidence that X results in Y.
Here Choice D is such an answer choice where we are limiting other factors which can result in mosquito repeals.
(A) Diallyl sulfide is also found in onions but at concentrations lower than in garlic.
(B) The mosquito population of the region as a whole was significantly smaller during the year in which the flooding took place than it had been in previous years.
(C) By the end of the summer, most of the garlic plants in the flooded fields had been killed by waterborne fungi.
(D) Many insect species not repelled by diallyl sulfide were found in the flooded garlic fields throughout the summer.
Limiting out other potential factors which could repeal mosquitoes. If other insect species , which are not repelled by DS then it is possible that DS is responsible for mosquito repeals.
Lets take an opposite of this answer choice - If many other insect species were also not found in the fields this particular year - this would mean that some other factor such as maybe extreme environment or poor water quality could result in insect species getting repelled (including mosquitoes).
(E) Mosquitoes are known to be susceptible to toxins in plants other than garlic, such as marigolds.

"This led the scientist who conducted the study to conclude that Alzheimer’s disease might be caused by a virus." this is the conclusion. To strengthen the conclusion and the premise that support it, we can show some connection between the build up to the diseases or the two diseases.
D offer such explanation. It says that the two diseases are same in nature.
A weakens the conclusion.
B and C offer unnecessary explanations.

A. Only small corporations can preserve an atmosphere of mutual respect and high regard without having a rigid corporate hierarchy - No differentiation b/w Small or big corporations.
B. Referring to an executive by using a title can encourage both those outside the organization and inside the organization to treat the executive with respect - Go against the argument.
C. Even if it is widely known within a corporation that the corporation's executives use executive titles outside their organizations, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit
communication within the corporation - Correct.
D. A rigid corporate hierarchy can promote efficiency within an organization as well as provide access to the corporation for those outside the organization - No other advantage except communication is discusses in passage.
E. Although many corporate executives disapprove of rigid hierarchies on the grounds that they inhibit communication, the vast majority of executives have no qualms about using titles both internally and externally - No mention of preference of executives.

Conclusion: PRP contract increase productivity. (Note: Here conclusion is a part of the question. Many times it is the part of the passage, in which case you will have to locate the conclusion)
Weaken: PRP contract doesn't increase productivity; something else does or PRP contract decreases productivity by having some negative effect.

(A) Results similar to those cited for the metal-working industry have been found in other industries where
PRP contracts are used.
It means the productivity is seen in other industries as well. It is a positive of PRP, not negative.

(B) Under PRP contracts costs other than labor costs, such as plant, machinery, and energy, make up an
increased proportion of the total cost of each unit of output.
This is just giving us a fact that is not connected and doesn't mention productivity.

(C) Because introducing PRP contracts greatly changes individual workers’ relationships to the firm,
negotiating the introduction of PRP contracts in complex and time consuming.
Something which is difficult/very complex to execute or understand is usually not a weakener. If none of the other options makes sense, then we can reluctantly choose these type of statement but in most cases, we can just ignore these.
(D) Many firms in the metalworking industry have modernized production equipment in the last five years,
and most of these introduced PRP contracts at the same time.
Here this statement presents a possibility that the productivity increase could be due to modern machines AND NOT due to PRP contracts. Thus, this is a weakening statement since it gives us an alternate cause of the effect.
----CORRECT WEAKENING STATEMENT
(E) In firms in the metalworking industry where PRP contracts are in place, the average take-home pay is 15
percent higher than it is in those firms where workers have more traditional contracts.
This is another fact which remotely suggests that PRP contract is good, not bad.

A) On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children. ---> Not relevant. If anything, it will strengthen the explanation.

B) Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children. ---> This gives another reason that may be behind the parents’ (living with children) higher intake of fat.

C) Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household. ---> I guess everyone with the following:
1. Author has no doubt that parents living with children have a higher intake of fat than those adults who stay without children.
2. Author is trying to provide reason for the above observation by attributing their (parents) higher intake of fat to pizzas & cookies (yum-yum).

Option C mentions the word most, which I think is equivalent to almost all. Now if the children consume almost everything then parents will be left with almost nothing. If it is so, then it will actually mean that parents (staying with children) don’t have comparably higher intake of fat than those adults who live without children. This will actually violate point 1, thus going against the author’s view that parents staying with children have a higher intake of fat. If point 1 is violated in the first place then how are we going to focus on point 2, which is the main point of discussion?

The whole point focuses on the reason for higher intake of fat & NOT whether parents with children have a higher intake than those adults who stay without children. So, discard this option.

D) Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters. ---> Yes, they ought to but do they? And even if they do so, it goes against the author’s view that parents staying with children have a higher intake of fat than those who are staying without children.

E) Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children. ---> Inconclusive.

A. Is the elevated level of orders likely to be a chronic rather than a temporary condition?
If this is a temporary condition, investment in Alt does not make sense.
Correct.
B. Has overtime work been resorted to in the past when orders received have gone beyond normal capacity?
Even if this was resorted to in the past, what is the guarantee that OT will be successful now?
C. Will suppliers of needed raw materials, fuels, etc., be able to step up deliveries to sustain a higher-than-normal level of production?
Third party factor- should not be considered
D. Would it be possible to increase the proportion of the company's work that is carried out off-site by subcontractors?
In a way, we can eliminate the need both for OT and Alt in this case.
E. Is labor-saving machinery being used optimally in all phases of production?
Third party factor- should not be considered

Whenever you are asked to make an inference from an argument presented on the GMAT, remember that inferences don't need to be interesting or surprising - they only need to be guaranteed.
The argument here states that a television network has been criticized for not giving as much time to climate change deniers as it does to those who believe in climate change even though they do give equal time to all sides of the debates surrounding other issues like tax reform and immigration. The network claims that this is because they only give equal time if one side of the debate cannot be definitively proven by science.
Since the network does not give equal time to both sides of the climate change debate, that means that people at the network believe that it fits the exception given and that one side (the side that believes in climate change) has been definitively proven by science, which matches answer choice (C).
Among the other answers, (A) can be discarded because while the network does not give equal time for all sides of the debate in some cases, it does not provide a blanket dismissal of debating all scientific discovery. Choice (B) can be eliminated since while the network believes the science has been settled, this is not the same thing as claiming that no one will be swayed by the arguments against climate change. Choice (D) is a bit harder to eliminate since the stimulus tells you that the people who believe that climate change is occurring are scientists, but it doesn't specifically say that the individuals who don't believe in climate change aren't scientists, so (D) can be eliminated. Choice (E) can also be eliminated since even though some people criticize the network for its current policy, it is unknown how a change in policy would affect overall criticism of the network (and in turn how that would effect ratings).­

(A) As the eye heals from an operation to correct nearsightedness, it may, in fact, overcorrect, causing the person to be farsighted.
- This answer choice helps resolve the discrepancy because it suggests that some patients who undergo RK may initially experience farsightedness due to overcorrection as the eye heals, which could explain why they might still need glasses or contact lenses for nearsightedness.
(B) The more severe a patient’s nearsightedness, the less effective the corneal reshaping of RK will be in correcting the problem.
- This answer choice helps resolve the discrepancy by suggesting that the effectiveness of RK is dependent on the severity of nearsightedness. This could explain why some patients with severe nearsightedness might still need glasses or contact lenses after RK.
(C) Occasionally an RK patient’s eyes may heal differently, causing a difference in the two eyes’ visual acuity that can be overcome only with corrective lenses.
- This answer choice helps resolve the discrepancy because it suggests that differences in the way RK patients' eyes heal could lead to variations in visual acuity between the eyes, necessitating corrective lenses.
(D) RK patients who originally suffered from only mild nearsightedness may, if the cornea does not heal evenly, develop an astigmatism that requires corrective lenses.
- This answer choice helps resolve the discrepancy by indicating that even patients with mild nearsightedness may develop astigmatism if the cornea doesn't heal evenly after RK, which would require corrective lenses.
(E) Those who choose to undergo RK tend to be as nearsighted before this operation as those who choose not to undergo RK.
- This answer choice does not help resolve the discrepancy. While it provides a comparison between the nearsightedness of patients who undergo RK and those who do not, it doesn't offer any specific information about why some RK patients might still need glasses or contact lenses after the surgery. It doesn't address the issue at the heart of the discrepancy.

To clarify, answer choice (E) is the correct answer because it does not provide any information that directly helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information provided.

The police chief's main conclusion is the following:
Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline.
The passage includes an objection to that conclusion:

It has been objected that there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation and that therefore Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies.

It also includes a premise that counters that objection and thus supports main conclusion:
Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline.

In the police chief’s argument, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
The first is not the main conclusion. It's not a conclusion at all. It's a statement of fact about what has occurred.
The second does not support the first.
Eliminate.

B. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a conclusion that was drawn to cast doubt on that main conclusion.
The first is not the main conclusion. It's not a conclusion at all. It's a statement of fact about what has occurred.
The second is a conclusion that goes against the main conclusion. At the same time, since the first is not the main conclusion, the second was not "drawn to cast doubt on" the first.
Eliminate.

C. The first presents a phenomenon, a certain explanation of which the argument seeks to defend; the second is a conclusion that was drawn to cast doubt on that explanation.
The first does present a phenomenon, "that the crime rate has declined significantly."
Also, the argument does seek to defend an explanation for that phenomenon, which is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." The police chief defends that conclusion against the objection mentioned in the passage by stating, "Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline."
So, the first part of this choice is correct.
Regarding the second part, it is "a conclusion that was drawn to cast doubt on that explanation." After all, the idea that "Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies," is a conclusion supported by "there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation." Also, clearly "Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies," casts doubt on the conclusion "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline.
So, the second part of this choice is correct as well.
Keep.

D. The first presents a phenomenon, a certain explanation of which the argument seeks to defend; the second presents evidence to support that explanation.
The first does present a phenomenon, "that the crime rate has declined significantly."
Also, the argument does seek to defend an explanation for that phenomenon, which is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." The police chief defends that conclusion against the objection mentioned in the passage by stating, "Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline."
So, the first part of this choice is correct.
However, the second part of this choice is incorrect because the second boldface portion does not support the conclusion that "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." Rather, the second boldface portion goes against that conclusion.
Eliminate.

E. The first presents a phenomenon, a certain explanation of which the argument seeks to defend; the second is the main conclusion of the police chief’s argument.
The first does present a phenomenon, "that the crime rate has declined significantly."
Also, the argument does seek to defend an explanation for that phenomenon, which is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." The police chief defends that conclusion against the objection mentioned in the passage by stating, "Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline."
So, the first part of this choice is correct.
However, the second part of this choice is incorrect because the second boldface portion is not the main conclusion of the police chief's argument. Rather, the main conclusion is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline," and the second boldface portion goes against that conclusion.
Eliminate.