GRE - T-24
Verbal:
Article one : (From GRE offical guide )
The immune systems of hamsters injected with laboratory cultures of Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, respond differently than do the immune systems of people infected with the bacterium as a result of the bites of ticks, the disease`s carrier. However, when hamsters are infected with the bacterium by tick bites, their immune-system response is identical to the human one. Probably, therefore, the bacterium in the ticks has a different form from the bacterium cultured in the laboratory.
The argument in the passage assumes which of the following?
(A) The difference in the manner in which the infection enters the body is not what causes the difference in the hamster`s immune-system response.
(B) The human immune-system response to injection with Borrelia burgdorferi would be identical to the hamster`s immune-system response to injection with that bacterium.
(C) In the wild, hamsters are at least occasionally infected with Lyme disease by tick bites.
(D) There are no laboratory-cultured bacteria that would cause the hamster`s immune system to react as it does when infected with Borrelia burgdorferi by a tick bite.
(E) In rodents other than hamsters, the immune-system responses to Borrelia burgdorferi infections both by injection and by tick bite are identical to those in hamsters.
Ans: (A)
Key) when we are requested the assumes, we need to turn the article into logic book style by categorizing into premises and conclusion. Then the find a premise which the author forget to mention in the argument. And when we put the selections into argument, we also need to make them coherent.
So,
P1: The immune systems of hamsters injected with laboratory cultures of Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, respond differently than do the immune systems of people infected with the bacterium as a result of the bites of ticks, the disease`s carrier.
First sentence shows the difference respond between laboratory hamster and bited people.
P2: However, when hamsters are infected with the bacterium by tick bites, their immune-system response is identical to the human one
They put hamster and people into the same scenario: bite. And they have the same reaction.
C: Probably, therefore, the bacterium in the ticks has a different form from the bacterium cultured in the laboratory.
So, the author conclude that the bacteria are two different speices.
in order to make sure its coherence, we need to find what casue the difference. and the conclusion says it is the bacteria, so we have to make sure that other different things will NOT result in the difference, which means that the other difference mentioned above should be not the case to cause the change. So, from P1, there is a difference about laboratory injection VS. bites of ticks. Obviously , (A) is the right answer.
(A) The difference in the manner in which the infection enters the body is not what causes the difference in the hamster`s immune-system response.
It says that the different respond is not caused by the injection way. It is right because it does make more clear of the difference-- caused by becterium only
Article two : (From GRE offical guide )
The ability to recognize specific individuals has profound implications for the evolution of complex social behaviors such as reciprocal altruism. Many researchers assumed that recognition of individuals, a phenomenon predominantly observed in laboratory studies of fish, might also operate extensively in free-ranging fish populations, where it could underpin these complex interactions. In fact, evidence of individual recognition in free-ranging fish populations is equivocal. The possibility exists that for many species, individual recognition observed in the laboratory might be an artifact of experimental designs, which enforce prolonged interaction between individuals and which prevent the diluting effects on social structure of immigration into and emigration from the shoal, factors that in nature would erode group stability and prevent the learning of individual identities.
Click on the sentence in the passage that speculates about the effect of human intervention on an observation.
Ans:
The possibility exists that for many species, individual recognition observed in the laboratory might be an artifact of experimental designs, which enforce prolonged interaction between individuals and which prevent the diluting effects on social structure of immigration into and emigration from the shoal, factors that in nature would erode group stability and prevent the learning of individual identities.
Key) I know that human intervention is that this is a laboratory studies. So the question is about what is the effect, meaning that I need to find the consequence after the artifical observation. So we start at the third sentence of this article: In fact, evidence of individual recognition in free-ranging fish populations is equivocal.
because before this, the author just claims his/her opinion, instead of providing evidence or reasons.
but this one: In fact, evidence of individual recognition in free-ranging fish populations is equivocal.
This is also not a effect; rather, it's a statement of agreement or disagreement. So, we can easily to recognize the final one is the answer.
The author would likely agree with which of the following statements about the prevalence of specific individual recognition that occurred in fish in the laboratory studies discussed?
(A) It suggests that the laboratory studies were well designed to simulate the natural habitats of the fish studied.
(B) It might have been inflated due to continued exposure to the same individuals.
(C) It does not provide reliable evidence about the behavior of free ranging fish.
Ans: (C)
Key) author agree what. So we only need to focus the sentence after " IN FACT". Because these two are key words of adversitive transitions. So, the author's opinion would change after thhe words. We just look for the main idea of sentences after " IN FACT". Then the answer will pop up.
In fact, evidence of individual recognition in free-ranging fish populations is equivocal.
This is useless without says anything about the detail. It noly represent the opinion. But we can assure (C) is right. And (A) stand on the opposite side. So only (B) we need to check later.
The possibility exists that for many species, individual recognition observed in the laboratory might be an artifact of experimental designs, which enforce prolonged interaction between individuals and which prevent the diluting effects on social structure of immigration into and emigration from the shoal, factors that in nature would erode group stability and prevent the learning of individual identities.
So, in this sentence, we can find two keys; prolonged interaction to make them familiar with each other, and move in or move out effect. That is all. (B) says inflated, that does not make sense, because of diluting effects
Text 1 : (From GRE offical guide )
| Blank(i) |
|
| (A) uncommon |
|
| (B) unconvincing |
|
| (C) ubiquitous |
|
Key) there is a BUT before Blank(ii), meaning that the blank should choose one word which is opposite to depressive, but we can not find any word to fit the meaning of " happy", So we need the more clue before the "but". But is a adversative transition. Then we find Modern attempts to find a dark, brooding layer in Mozart`s psychology have been (i)_____. There is a "layer" which is critical because the "Layer" can be opposite to "all-important". Then (D) is the answer, and how to solve Blank(i), and we know that all the meaning is important so we cannot judge a penson from only one layer or it will be "unconvincing"-- the result of considering layer only.
Text 2: (From GRE offical guide )
| Blank(i) |
|
| (A) inchoate |
|
| (B) esoteric |
|
| (C) historical |
|
Ans: (C) (E)
Key) very easy. Becasue of the "and" between Blank(i) and Blank(ii), we expect to find the answer which fit on the next sentence by how disgust evolved over time and what triggers it. "Over time" is similar to historical and "triggers" matchs causal.
Article three : (From GRE offical guide )
San Lorenzo, center of the ancient Mesoamerican Olmec culture, is famous for its massive stone statuary and distinctive ceramic figurines. Archaeologists disagree, however, about why Olmec-style ceramics have also been found at sites very distant from the Olmec heartland. Proponents of the mother-culture interpretation point to the statuary as indicative of unprecedented social organization and interpret the distribution of the ceramics as evidence of Olmec influence on less complex societies. According to the sister-cultures interpretation, however, these Olmec-style objects are simply a visual expression of religious beliefs shared by numerous Mesoamerican cultures whose contact with one another increased over time. The Olmec were neither solely responsible for the creation and spread of the style nor more advanced than the cultures they contacted.
It can be inferred that proponents of the sister-culture interpretation would be LEAST likely to agree with proponents of the mother-culture interpretation on which of the following issues?
(A) The importance of religion in Olmec society
(B) The degree of contact between San Lorenzo and other Mesoamerican cultures
(C) The place where Olmec-style objects discovered far from San Lorenzo were produced
(D) The relative contribution the center of the Olmec culture made to the Olmec style of ceramics
(E) The level of social organization needed to produce the Olmec stone statuary in San Lorenzo
Ans: (D)
Key) the inference should be careful about the information in which the main idea would cover several sentences. So, we sould focus on more than the target sentence. And according to proponents of the sister-culture and proponents of the mother-culture , we are requested to answer the difference. Let's get start.
Consider this sentence: Proponents of the mother-culture interpretation point to the statuary as indicative of unprecedented social organization and interpret the distribution of the ceramics (I don't care) as evidence of Olmec influence on less complex societies. We realize this opinion is about a cluture influencing otheres like descendent.
Then, According to the sister-cultures interpretation, however, these Olmec-style objects are simply a visual expression of religious beliefs shared by numerous Mesoamerican cultures whose contact with one another increased over time. The Olmec were neither solely responsible for the creation and spread of the style nor more advanced than the cultures they contacted. It says "share", because of 'However'-- a adversative transition to make the "shared" in the sentence contrary to "influence". So we care about the relation of share or influence, matching relative contribution of (D)
Which of the following discoveries would provide evidence favoring either one or the other of the two interpretations?
(A) The discovery that a high proportion of the Olmec-style pottery found in San Lorenzo was made in settlements outside the Olmec heartland.
(B) The discovery that while many settlements outside the Olmec heartland had ceramics that had been made in San Lorenzo, none had ceramics that had been made in other such settlements.
(C) The discovery that one particular style of Olmec-style ceramic was found in a number of settlements outside the Olmec heartland but not in San Lorenzo.
Ans: (A)(B)(C)
Key) we are in the similar question above. So, (A) "outside the Olmec heartland" is sister-culture. (B)"none had ceramics" is mother-culture. (C)"outside the Olmec heartland" is sister.
Article four : (From GRE offical guide )
Observations of social play in several species of mammals indicate that individuals often depart from the usual social conventions by, for example, alternating dominant and subordinate positions in ways that do not occur outside the play context. Some researchers have even suggested that individuals must follow a 50:50 rule during dyadic play (play between two individuals), so that each participant wins an equal proportion of play encounters. Commonly cited cooperative tactics used to equalize play include self-handicapping (participants make themselves more vulnerable to attacks by their opponents) and role reversal (individuals that are dominant in the nonplay context appear subordinate during play). Where such tactics occur among unevenly matched opponents, they appear to facilitate play by making play more appealing to the less advantaged player.
When Bauer and Smuts set out to study play behavior in domestic dogs, they made several predictions. They expected to find no significant sex differences in dogs` play behavior. The motor skills dogs use in play fighting parallel those used in nonplayful aggression and hunting, areas in which dogs` behavior is relatively undifferentiated by sex. They also predicted that the advantages imparted by larger relative size, by the experience of age, and by higher dominance status would affect dogs` dyadic play. Existing research on a variety of animal species suggests that individuals with such advantages often refrain from attacks and pursuits or engage in self-handicapping so as not to intimidate their play partners. If this held true for dogs, larger, older, more dominant dogs would show more self-handicapping than their partners. But Bauer and Smuts predicted instead that dogs would deviate from the hypothetical 50:50 rule, with advantaged individuals retaining their positions by performing the majority of attacks and pursuits and engaging in fewer self-handicapping behaviors than their partners, thus reinforcing existing hierarchies.
Bauer and Smuts` three-year study of dogs` dyadic play found that most dyads showed some degree of asymmetry (one dog winning more encounters than the other) and some dyads showed complete asymmetry. They also found that in general, older dogs performed more attacks and pursuits and that younger dogs engaged in more self-handicapping. Role reversal between dominant and subordinate individuals varied widely: several dyads never reversed dominance roles, a few reversed them frequently, and most reversed them occasionally.
Bauer and Smuts` finding about asymmetry in dyadic play has several implications. First, it indicates that active self-handicapping and role reversals are not necessarily required for play to occur. Indeed, play often continued at length even when one partner always won. Second, since frequent role reversals occurred, it appears that normal status asymmetries are often significantly more relaxed in the play context. This suggests that role reversals, while not always necessary, probably do facilitate play.
It can be inferred from the passage that the "existing research" found which of the following about animals` play behavior?
(A) Most animal species show significant sex differentiation when engaged in dyadic play.
(B) Dominant animals often appear to adjust their behavior during play in order to encourage subordinate partners to play with them.
(C) Larger, more experienced animals generally maintain their hierarchical roles in relation to smaller, younger animals during dyadic play.
(D) Few animal species that engage in dyadic play adhere closely to the 50:50 rule during play encounters.
(E) Some animal species show much more asymmetry during dyadic play than other species do.
ANS: (B)
Before answering that, we need to figure out which sentences should be read. I am gonna show them below.
Observations of social play in several species of mammals indicate that individuals often depart from the usual social conventions by, for example, alternating dominant and subordinate positions in ways that do not occur outside the play context. Some researchers have even suggested that individuals must follow a 50:50 rule during dyadic play (play between two individuals), so that each participant wins an equal proportion of play encounters. Commonly cited cooperative tactics used to equalize (this is same description as the equal 50: 50 rule, So this is redundancy, meaning that you can ignore them including their following sentence.) play include self-handicapping (participants make themselves more vulnerable to attacks by their opponents) and role reversal (individuals that are dominant in the nonplay context appear subordinate during play). Where such tactics occur among unevenly matched opponents, they appear to facilitate play by making play more appealing to the less advantaged player.
So key point in the first paragraph is an opinion of research that animal plays follow the equal rule "50:50".
When Bauer and Smuts set out to study play behavior in domestic dogs, they made several predictions. They expected to find no significant sex differences in dogs` play behavior. The motor skills dogs use in play fighting parallel those used in nonplayful aggression and hunting, areas in which dogs` behavior is relatively undifferentiated by sex. They also predicted that the advantages imparted by larger relative size, by the experience of age, and by higher dominance status would affect dogs` dyadic play. Existing research on a variety of animal species suggests that individuals with such advantages often refrain from attacks and pursuits or engage in self-handicapping so as not to intimidate their play partners. If this held true for dogs, larger, older, more dominant dogs would show more self-handicapping than their partners.(I see two pronouns and there are no adversative transitions. So, ignore) But Bauer and Smuts predicted instead that dogs would deviate from the hypothetical 50:50 rule, with advantaged individuals retaining their positions by performing the majority of attacks and pursuits and engaging in fewer self-handicapping behaviors than their partners, thus reinforcing existing hierarchies.
Ok, it talks about twe people's research of dogs, and they finally find that dogs would deviate from the hypothetical 50:50 rule. Be careful of what they mentioned before the word "But", cuz everything before the word "BUT" is bullshit. What the real main idea is the sentence after "But". Don't ask me why, because it is a adversative transition. If you really want to know, go check out the "Game of throne" first season, episode NO.1. Then we have got another information: dog do not follow 50:50.
Bauer and Smuts` three-year study of dogs` dyadic play found that most dyads showed some degree of asymmetry (one dog winning more encounters than the other) and some dyads showed complete asymmetry. They also found that in general, older dogs performed more attacks and pursuits and that younger dogs engaged in more self-handicapping. Role reversal between dominant and subordinate individuals varied widely: several dyads never reversed dominance roles, a few reversed them frequently, and most reversed them occasionally.
It continues to talk about the research of dogs sequentially and chronologically, So the main idea would be the same as upper paragraph. Please ignore, you ain't got no time.
Bauer and Smuts` finding about asymmetry in dyadic play has several implications. First, it indicates that active self-handicapping and role reversals are not necessarily required for play to occur. Indeed, play often continued at length even when one partner always won. Second, since frequent role reversals occurred, it appears that normal status asymmetries are often significantly more relaxed in the play context. This suggests that role reversals, while not always necessary, probably do facilitate play.
Finally, we read the effect that we really care about. It says that several implications. So take notes of these two and then you will be fine.
KEY) For this question, I hate long article but normally their questions were quite specific in detail on certain parageraph. So, actually, no need to read them all. And the official guide have 4 questions on it, but I only chose questions I had got the wrong answer.
First, read the question, there is a "inferred", showing that it is not easy to find your answer in only one sentence. And then key words are "existing research" and animals` play behavior
Looking back to the article, I target this:
Existing research on a variety of animal species suggests that individuals with such advantages often refrain from attacks and pursuits or engage in self-handicapping so as not to intimidate their play partners. If this held true for dogs, larger, older, more dominant dogs would show more self-handicapping than their partners. But Bauer and Smuts predicted instead that dogs would deviate from the hypothetical 50:50 rule, with advantaged individuals retaining their positions by performing the majority of attacks and pursuits and engaging in fewer self-handicapping behaviors than their partners, thus reinforcing existing hierarchies.
Form these two key words "Existing research" VS "Bauer and Smuts". They are different research. And But shows they are on the two opposite site, so if B&S says that dogs would "deviate" from 50:50 rule, meaning that Existing research stay with the 50:50 rule, causing (B) to be the right answer.
Which of the following best describes the purpose of the highlighted sentence?
" If this held true for dogs, larger, older, more dominant dogs would show more self-handicapping than their partners. "
(A) It cites certain factors that Bauer and Smuts predicted would account for dogs` deviation from the 50:50 rule.
(B) It identifies certain expectations that Bauer and Smuts had at the beginning of their study of dogs` dyadic play.
(C) It explains what would occur if the subjects of Bauer and Smuts` study behaved like the subjects of the research mentioned in the previous sentence.
(D) It speculates about why the play behavior of dogs might resemble that of animal species previously studied.
(E) It challenges an assumption about the behavior of dominant dogs that had been held by many researchers.
Ans: (C)
Key) the sentence is just right before the BUT. So this is a kind of transition to get into the other opinion.
(A) is wrong, becuase the deviation theory is behind the "but". We expect that the sentence sould follow the upper opinion " 50:50 rule"
(B) on the contrary, they are really surprised about the result.
(C) contrast to (A)
(D) all the paragraph are talking about dogs, ain't any animals.
(E) no challenges.
Article five : (From GRE offical guide )
Last year, Fillmore County`s farmers used Sordane, a highly effective nonpersistent pesticide, on their crops. Though crop yields were satisfactory, aerial spraying of Sordane increased the county`s incidence of respiratory illness. This year, farmers sprayed with the weaker pesticide Kaskanine instead. Crop yields were unchanged, while the county experienced a significant decline in respiratory illness. Therefore, if farmers use only Kaskanine next year, the reduced incidence of respiratory illness will be maintained without sacrificing crop yields.
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?
(A) Whether Sordane is the most effective pesticide available to farmers in Fillmore County
(B) Whether, as a result of last year`s spraying of Sordane, this year`s population of harmful insects was smaller than it would have been in a year following one in which farmers used only Kaskanine
(C) Whether the increase in the incidence of respiratory illness in Fillmore County caused by aerial spraying of Sordane was the only consideration in the farmers` decision to switch to Kaskanine
(D) Whether the use of Sordane has been discontinued in other counties for the same reasons as in Fillmore County
(E) Whether restrictions on the use of Sordane could have produced a significant reduction in the incidence of respiratory illness
Ans:
Key) requesting evaluation means that when we put the question options in to the argument, it's supposed to be making the conclusion can either be true or false. In other words, the right option should match the coherence of the argument but also it can make conclusion have two results, true and false, based on its positive or negative scenario.
So, categorize into logic book style.
P1: Last year, Fillmore County`s farmers used Sordane, a highly effective nonpersistent pesticide, on their crops.
P2: Though crop yields were satisfactory, aerial spraying of Sordane increased the county`s incidence of respiratory illness.
P3:This year, farmers sprayed with the weaker pesticide Kaskanine instead.
P4: Crop yields were unchanged, while the county experienced a significant decline in respiratory illness.
C: Therefore, if farmers use only Kaskanine next year, the reduced incidence of respiratory illness will be maintained without sacrificing crop yields.
So, "S" makes crops go up, but illness goes up
"K" makes crops maintain = "S" , but illness goes down
by "K" next illness goes down and crops maintain
First, disregard will the "whethers" in the sentence. every info. mentioned in every option should make conclusion be ture, and keep argument coherent. So, the coherence is about the fluctuation on crop and illness.
(A) Whether Sordane is the most effective pesticide available to farmers in Fillmore County
(A) It did not mention "K", wrong, digressive. Although it is good, It still have to be used to prove it is the most effective. It does not mention the effect after used. This argument's coherence is about the relation between crops and illness.
(B) Whether, as a result of last year`s spraying of Sordane, this year`s population of harmful insects was smaller than it would have been in a year following one in which farmers used only Kaskanine
(B) harmful insects maybe, because it influenced the crops' fluctuation. Keep that for a while.
(C) Whether the increase in the incidence of respiratory illness in Fillmore County caused by aerial spraying of Sordane was the only consideration in the farmers` decision to switch to Kaskanine
(C) illness was the "only" consideration why the illness is the reason ? How about the crops. So wrong.
(D) Whether the use of Sordane has been discontinued in other counties for the same reasons as in Fillmore County
(D) discontinued in other counties wrong, digressive
(E) Whether restrictions on the use of Sordane could have produced a significant reduction in the incidence of respiratory illness
(E) It is begging the question because P2 already says that "S" cause the increase in illness, which means if we says without P2(premises 2), then C(conclusion) is right or wrong. That implied P2 may get right or wrong, but our mission is to judge whether the conclusion is right or not. If we says that restrictions on the use of Sordane could "NOT" have produced a significant reduction in the incidence of respiratory illness, resulting in contradicting P2. We are not to be here to claim P2 is wrong, but we are here to claim if C is wrong. FYI, when I see no "K" is the option I just innored, same reason as option (A).
Silion Valley quote, pretty interesting!! BUT NOT ME!!!
Pete Monahan, Rrichard's lawyer:
" Not long ago, emergency workers pulled me out of the flaming wrechage of my Mercury Grand Marquis.
Today, you pulled me out of the flaming wreckage of my life, and those flames burn far hotter.
I used to take a tanpon, sock it in grain alcohol, and stick it up into my rectum.
That got me high.
But not half as high as the drug you just gave me.
"The second chance" "
Quote from S02 E10 - Two Days of the Condor
以上筆記彙整，再請多指教
托福TOEFL ibt (4)