The key to this question is the contrast between the “elated,” or excited, crowd, and the “skeptical,” or doubting, cynics. We are looking for a word that would cause the crowd to be excited, but would cast doubt among skeptics. We can immediately eliminate choice (A) stolid, “unemotional,” choice (B) verbose, “talkative,” and choice (E) diffident, “lacking self-confidence,” as these are all negative adjectives for a political speech and would not invoke the excitement of the crowd. Choice (C) whimsical, “fanciful,” seems plausible: the crowd might like a fanciful, idealistic promise, while cynics would remain doubtful of its veracity. However, choice (D) extravagant is a better choice, as it implies an attractive promise that might not be realistic.
Based on the context, you can assume that the blank will describe a hero’s ability to be harmed, so you can predict resistant, or unable, to describe the hero’s relationship to harm. Choice (A) obdurate has a meaning related to your prediction, but its connotations are more emotional than physical—it means “resistant to persuasion” or “unmoved by pity” and is therefore not appropriate in this context. Choice (C) oblivious may be tempting, but the second part of the sentence is clearly discussing actual bodily harm, not awareness of harm. Choice (B) impervious means “unable to be pierced” and is the best choice.
For the second blank, you could use the examples of Achilles’s heel and Samson’s hair to help you along. But whether or not you are familiar with these stories, you can use the straight-ahead road sign of the semicolon: the second part of the sentence carries the same ideas as the first. Since the first part of the sentence suggests that heroes all have some sort of flaw or problem, predict a word that means “open to harm.” Choice (D) gullible refers to someone who is easily tricked. This adjective does not make sense to describe a part of the body and is therefore incorrect. Choice (E) impotent describes what might become of a hero who has been harmed, but it does not work as the predicted meaning itself. Only choice (F) susceptible carries the correct meaning, “open to harm,” and is your answer.
The key to this question is the contradiction between the group's voting behavior before the election and in the election itself. The single word before the comma in blank (i) is a road sign word setting up this contradiction, so predict something like Oddly or Strangely. (A) paradoxically is correct. Predictably, (B), is the opposite of the prediction. Impetuously, (C), describes quick and thoughtless behavior, and while the people in this group demonstrate inconstancy in their support for the candidate, there are no clues to indicate they are making rash judgments.
The second blank is connected to "most likely to vote for the candidate" by the straight-ahead road sign "and," so predict that this demographic group was active or strong in its support in online forums. (F) matches this prediction since vociferous means “very loud” or "insistent." Tacit, (D), means “unspoken,” which would be the opposite of the prediction. Equivocal, (E), means “misleading and vague,” which may describe the pre-election survey data, but the word in blank (ii) must describe the people and these individuals expressed a positive view of the candidate.
The word in the final blank will describe the "nature" of online polls, and this is described after the colon. Even though they generate "seemingly objective" data, they can be inaccurate—and inaccurate is a good prediction. (G) is correct because something that is specious is “misleading.” Acerbic, (H), means “harsh” or “severe,” and mutable, (I), means “changeable.” Although people may behave differently on election day than indicated in pre-election polls and perhaps be considered "changeable," the word in the third blank describes the polls, not the people surveyed.
The first blank describes something that researchers would track in order to make decisions about “river release points” that will lead to changes in the salmon population. The GRE does not expect you to be an expert on wildlife biology, so if you're not sure what “river release points” are, don't worry about it. Just focus on the context clues you do understand. In the second sentence, the distance that salmon travel determines how healthy they are and, by extension, how healthy the ecosystem is. Thus, predict that the research studies under discussion look at the fish's movement. Two of the choices for the first blank are related to movement, but only one is not specific to humans. (B) migration means “to move from one place to another” and is correct. (A) immigration can be eliminated because it means “moving to another country to live there,” and fish don't think about which country they're in. The (C) evolution of the salmon is something that could be under study, but the context clues do not suggest that this research is about that.
The third blank relates salmon varieties that “have greater growth rates” and “tend to be healthier” to “larger populations.” The ideas can be connected with the prediction result in, which works well with (G) yield, meaning “to produce something.” There is no supporting evidence in the sentence that the hardy salmon species are going to either (H) supplant, meaning “take the place of,” or (I) undermine, meaning “make something weaker,” any other species.
Finally, you can use the clues at the end of the second sentence to make a prediction for the second blank, which describes what kind of population the researchers want to achieve. The goal for researchers is “to introduce more of the hardy salmon species.” Based on this information, predict that the researchers want to create a more diverse population. A population that is (F) heterogeneous is one that is “made up of diverse parts,” which matches the prediction. Both (D) homogeneous and (E) kindred mean “similar” and can be eliminated.
The first blank describes the “relationship” of patients with their doctors, and the second blank describes these patients’ “reactions” to being “force[d]” to see different doctors. The key phrase “evidenced by” indicates a straight-ahead relationship between the first blank and the second one. How are patients going to react to insurance companies that try to “force” them to see new doctors? For the second blank, predict that their reactions will be hostile or critical. (F) is correct because antagonistic means “combative.” (D) tacit means “unspoken,” and (E) onerous means “burdensome.”
After you’ve filled in the second blank, the first blank is easier to predict. You want a positive word that describes the patient–doctor relationship as important. (C) is correct because sacrosanct means “sacred.” (A) laconic means “using few words,” and (B) stolid means “unemotional.”
“While” is a detour road sign, indicating the contrast between what the university intended with the adoption of a new policy and the criticism that the policy received. For the first blank, predict that the policy was intended to satisfy or win the approval of the faculty. (B) is correct because mollify means to “appease” or “to make something better”; thus, mollifying the faculty would satisfy the faculty. (A), obviate, means to “prevent” or “eliminate,” which does not match the prediction. Censure, (C), means “to show disapproval” or “to officially reprimand.”
For the second blank, you want a word that indicates how the faculty characterized the university’s attempt to address a "serious problem." Since the faculty was critical, predict that they thought the university’s policy was a poor or feeble attempt. (D) is correct because tepid means “lacking in force” or “unenthusiastic.” Pugnacious, (E), means “combative” or “inclined to fight.” Polarizing, (F), means “to divide into sharply opposing groups.”
You are asked here to weaken the parents’ argument, which is outlined in the first sentence of the stimulus: parents believe that poor attendance results from poor motivation. This sets up a cause-and-effect relationship between “poor attendance” and “poor motivation,” with poor motivation as the cause and poor attendance as the effect. The parents go on to elaborate on their theory and suggest a plan of action, but this cause-and-effect argument is the central issue.
Since you need to weaken this argument, you need to find an answer choice that contradicts or otherwise introduces doubt into this assertion. Choice (B) does just this by stating that “the degree of interest in learning that a student develops” (i.e., a student’s motivation) is a result of “the amount of time he or she spends in the classroom” (his or her attendance). Choice (B) establishes a new cause-and-effect relationship with attendance as the cause and motivation as the effect. Since this reverses the causality from the initial argument, it weakens the stimulus and is the correct answer.
Wrong choices (A), (D), and (E) fail to mention both attendance and motivation and therefore sidestep the issue. Choice (C) does mention both concepts, but its stance of decrying strict attendance policies is right in line with the last sentence of the stimulus and would thus strengthen rather than weaken the argument.
This question asks you to identify the most accurate summary of the passage. Use your summary of the topic, scope, and purpose of the passage as a prediction of the correct answer. This author is writing to inform the reader about a discovery that was initially exciting: scientists discovered a new bacterium that seemed to have the remarkable ability to use arsenic, and this discovery challenged assumptions about the building blocks of life. That matches the correct answer, (C). Choice (A) is extreme; the passage states that the new discovery introduced new possibilities for life in other parts of our universe, but it does not state that this discovery would prove that there is life in other parts of our universe. (B) contradicts the passage; in fact, "[a]rsenic is toxic to most known organisms." (D) does not reflect the passage’s main point, which is broader than how many elements can be considered "building blocks of life." (E) misses the boat by focusing on a detail in the passage and making a prediction that is not supported.
The correct answer to this Detail question is directly stated in the passage. GFAJ-1 can tolerate arsenic and "initial studies suggested that it could even incorporate the chemical into its cells.” Choices (A) and (D) both state that the GFAJ-1 strain is a form of bacteria. However, (A) states that it is a water-based bacteria, which is not supported by information in the passage. (D) states that the GFAJ-1 strain was believed to be a type of bacteria that incorporates arsenic into its cells, which (as noted above) is directly stated in the passage. This is the correct answer. Eliminate (B) because it states that the GFAJ-1 strain is a building block of life, not a bacteria strain that is made up of building blocks of life. Eliminate (C) because it states that the GFAJ-1 strain is a form of arsenic, not a bacteria strain that was thought to be arsenic based. Similarly, eliminate (E) because it states that the GFAJ-1 strain is a form of DNA, whereas the passage says that it seemed to develop DNA from arsenic.
This question asks you to evaluate the statement and identify the conclusions you can validly draw using the information from the passage. Choice (A) is a reasonable conclusion because it is based on the claim cited in the passage that arsenic-based bacteria would have “opened new possibilities for life elsewhere in the universe.” (B) is not based on any information stated in the passage. The passage suggests that the discovery of this new bacteria had implications for the likelihood of finding life on other planets, but it does not suggest that the bacteria came from another planet. (C) is a reasonable conclusion because the passage states that initial studies of GFAJ-1 suggested that “organisms can exist in chemical environments that scientists may not have considered.”
Ask yourself what kind of characterization it must be if the characterization hasn’t been confirmed. Predict that it must be one that was made too quickly or carelessly. Therefore, you can eliminate judicious, (A), which means “using good judgment.” Perfunctory, (B), means “done without much care” or “done superficially.” Making a characterization that hasn’t been confirmed would be an instance of acting quickly or without much care, so keep this choice. Hasty, (C), means “done quickly” or “done without much thought,” giving the sentence the same meaning as does perfunctory. Therefore, keep (C). Orthodox, (D), which means “adhering to tradition or what is customary,” does not make sense in this context. Since Mr. Phillips is characterizing a political faction as ultra-neoconservative, he may indeed be partisan, (E), which means being “devoted to a particular group, idea, cause, etc.” However, there is not another choice that provides a similar meaning. Senatorial, (F), means “relating to a senate or senator,” which does not make sense in this context. (B) and (C) are correct.
Notice the words "once" and "now." These contrasting words indicate that how the newspaper describes the scholarship program has changed; together, they constitute a detour road sign. Be careful taking apart the phrase “anything but unfair”; this means the newspaper used to assess the program as fair. "[N]ow," however, the paper must describe the program as unfair. This is a good prediction. Inequitable, (D), means “unjust” or “unfair,” so keep this choice. Discriminatory, (F), means “biased” or “prejudicial.” This choice gives the sentence the same meaning as does inequitable and is the other correct answer. Eliminate reasonable, (A), and unbiased, (B), as contradicting the prediction. There is no clue that suggests the program is lucrative, (C), which means “profitable.” Fallacious, (E), which means “logically unsound” or “deceptive,” may be a tempting choice. However, an unfair program may or may not be fallacious. Further, there is no other choice that gives the sentence the same meaning.
Since the restaurant is a “fledgling,” or new, business, it needs to avoid bad reviews to be successful. In the second part of the sentence, the term “opprobrious” means “publicly disgraceful” or “shameful.” If you did not know the meaning of “opprobrious,” given the context of the sentence, you may still have been able to infer that “opprobrious” has a negative charge. Therefore, predict that any instance of poor or inappropriate behavior by staff could lead to such bad reviews. Obstinance, (A), means “stubbornness.” The obstinance of a staff member, especially in response to a customer's request, could indeed merit a bad review. Unseemliness, (B), means “inappropriate,” and staff who behave inappropriately could also earn the restaurant a bad review. Though both (A) and (B) fit in the sentence, they do not give the text the same meaning. Keep looking for a match. Indecorum, (E), means “improper behavior” and gives the sentence the same meaning as does unseemliness, so (B) and (E) are correct. Kindness, (C), and courtesy, (D), are opposites of your prediction. While larceny, (F), or theft, could lead to a bad review if a staff member committed it against a customer, there is not enough context to support this choice, nor is there another choice with the same meaning.
The word “incongruity,” which means “a thing that is contrary or lacking consistency,” is a detour road sign indicating a contrast between the writer's nature and coping with setbacks "with equanimity." Someone with an equanimous disposition is “even-tempered” or “calm.” (Note that the root word equ means “even” or “equal.”) Predict that the author’s nature is not calm. Thus, (B) mercurial, meaning “having unpredictable moods,” is a match, as is (F) volatile. These are the correct choices. Xenophobic, (A), means “having a fear or hatred of foreigners.” Timorous, (C), means “shy” or “fearful.” Impassive, (D), means “not having or not showing feeling or emotion,” and dissembling, (E), means “misleading.”
The correct answer to this question will be true based on the passage. With this in mind, (A) is the correct answer. If this performance art project is an “example of” Modernist art, it must be the case that at least some performance art is Modernist in origin. Although (B) may be true in the real world, it is not an implication of the passage. The author says nothing about the political dimensions of the performance. Consider (C) carefully: critics do comment on this aspect of this project’s shock value, but nowhere is it suggested that critics prefer visual art to performance art. This passage doesn’t make any assessment of how “powerful” the message of the piece is, only suggesting that finding out how the artwork is made is a powerful experience, so (D) is incorrect. Choice (E) is too vague; the artist described here may suffer more physically, but that doesn’t translate to a generalized statement that performance artists suffer more than artists of other genres.
This Inference question asks you to identify statements about people's reaction to the artwork that follow from the passage. According to the critics mentioned in the passage, knowing how the art was created is potentially related to the audience’s interest in it. The reaction is mainly reliant on the concept, not the product, of the art. Thus, (B) is correct; if the audience doesn’t appreciate how the art was made, they may be less interested in it. Choice (A) doesn’t follow from the passage. Nothing suggests that the beauty or clarity of the images produced affects the success of the project. If (C) were true, it would likely increase the popularity of the performance and get people thinking about it. This has the opposite effect called for by the question stem.
The question asks what the author of the passage would think about the Pure Food and Drug Act; this law is discussed in the first paragraph, so start your research there. The only opinion there is that of Upton Sinclair, who was not happy that the act focused on food safety rather than the worker exploitation he sought to highlight in The Jungle. Look further to find the opinion of the passage's author. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the author indicates an opinion through a comparison, saying that "concerns over food safety and purity . . . won out over more compassionate objectives." Thus, the author feels that Congress with the Pure Food and Drug Act addressed a less important problem than it should have. Then again, in the last sentence of the passage, the author expresses agreement with Sinclair, saying that “the public’s stomach is, in fact, more sensitive than its heart.” Look for an answer choice that lines up with the opinion. (B) does so nicely; the author would think, just as Sinclair did, that this law was a misguided response to The Jungle, so this is the correct answer.
(A) is incorrect because the author does not express any opinion on the effectiveness of the law; she thinks a law protecting workers would have been a more appropriate response, but that doesn’t mean she thinks the law that was passed didn’t work. (C) confuses the U.S. law this question asks about with the Bavarian law discussed in the second paragraph. (D) is wrong because the only discussion of food prices comes in the second paragraph in connection to the Reinheitsgebot, not the Pure Food and Drug Act. (E) may be tempting because the author does think the act addressed a problem that should have been a lower priority. However, it's clear that The Jungle did highlight a problem with food quality, given its "stories of contaminated or diseased meat," and the law addressed that issue.
This Detail question asks for a fact about the effects of the Reinheitsgebot, which is discussed in the second paragraph. A quick paraphrase of the paragraph’s main point will serve as guidance: the law was enacted with the hope of keeping bread affordable, but many today associate it with beer purity. Keep this in mind as you evaluate the answer choices. (E) paraphrases the next-to-last sentence and is correct: "[modern] beers conform to the Reinheitsgebot." Even if the claims modern breweries make on this basis are misplaced, beer is being made with only the ingredients stipulated by this 16th-century law. (A) is incorrect; the author points out that the law was not intended to raise the quality of beer, and even if that happened as an unintended side effect, it isn’t mentioned in the passage. (B) can be eliminated; the law was passed in Bavaria, which is said to be part of the Holy Roman Empire, but there’s no indication the law was in effect throughout the empire. (C) may be tempting, because the author states that the intent of the law was to keep bread affordable. However, the passage never says whether it was successful in meeting this goal. Even though there are breweries that claim to follow the law today, there’s no indication that they’re legally obligated to; they may be invoking an old law in their advertising to cloak their beer in a mantle of purity. Thus, (D) is incorrect.
This question asks you to make inferences based on the information in the passage. You will need to evaluate each response one by one and weigh its merits. Choices (A) and (B) are similar in that they refer to Cather’s motives in becoming an author. The passage does not prove, however, that she wouldn’t have become an author at all if she had stayed in Virginia. Choice (B) is not the correct answer. You can also rule out (C); the author tells you explicitly that Cather remembered Virginia. The fact that she was influenced by Nebraska doesn’t mean that she devalued her former home. To support the claim in (D), the passage would have to offer summaries of each novel and more information about Cather’s relationship to communities of people. You can’t draw this inference from the passage. In a literary analysis, an author could possibly support a claim such as the one stated in choice (E). However, based on this passage, (E) is emotional hyperbole. Choice (A) is the most feasible assumption. According to the passage, Cather certainly would not have written the specific novels she did write if she hadn’t moved to Nebraska as a child.
The correct answer to this Global question summarizes the passage’s structure. The passage certainly compares two landscapes, but to correctly answer this question, you must determine why the comparison is made. Choice (C) includes the main point of the passage—Cather’s shock upon first seeing Nebraska and its influence on her writing—and this is correct. You can eliminate choice (A) because it does not provide a reason for the comparison. Rule out (B) because prior to seeing Nebraska, Cather had nothing to compare to Virginia; we do not know how she “responded” to her home state. Choice (D) is similar to the correct answer, but the focus of the passage is not on Cather's thought process as she compared the two landscapes; rather, it's on her reaction to a new landscape and the effect of this experience on her writing. You can also cross off choice (E) as there is little to no information about the novels in the passage. Therefore, (C) is the correct answer.