35
OA 3
All the sentences are about the font Comic Sans. In all of them except [2], the author merely reports what it is like, what other people think
about it and why they dislike it – she does not express her own opinion on it. But [2] is the author's own opinion so it does not fit with the
relatively objective viewpoint of the rest of the sentences. Hence, [2].
36
OA 4
All the sentences are about a situation in which an employee resigns abruptly. While sentences [2], [3] and [4] are about the manager's
reaction to the news, [1] is advice to the manager on how to prevent this in the future. So it does not quite fit into the sequence. Hence, [1].
37
OA 2
Sentences [1], [2] and [4] are in the present tense, and describe the scene at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, on a particular winter
afternoon. Sentence [3] is in the past tense, and talks about routines that no longer hold. So it does not fit into the sequence. Hence, [3].
38
OA 4
Sentences [2], [4] and [3] are about three different views about the usage of adverbs in writing. On the other hand, [1] is about the
repetition of the word 'said' in speech tags; it is not about the use of adverbs. So it does not fit into the sequence. Hence, [1].
Q 39
Explanation:
The first two paragraphs of this passage are devoted to ancient civilizations of the Old World, then the rest talk about those of the New
World, so [3] is a partial answer. Ancient societies in China, India and Pakistan are mentioned, so the passage is not just about the
Western world, so [4] is incorrect; also, [4] fails to mention that the passage is about past societies only. [2] is too general a topic: the
passage isn't about all ancient civilizations. Rather, it talks specifically about the growth of large, powerful societies in the ancient world.
Hence, [4].
Q 40
Explanation:
A literal reading of the phrase 'beat swords into ploughshares' suggests that people turn swords – i.e. weapons of war – into
ploughshares – i.e. farming equipment. In the figurative sense, this means that people turn away from warfare and towards a peaceful
lifestyle. Paragraph 2 suggests that the new life was a 'golden age of relative peace and plenty'. So [2] is the best answer. Note that [1] is
only partially correct, as it does not explain the 'ploughshares' part of the phrase. [3] is too negative, and is the opposite of what is
suggested by the phrase. [4] cannot be inferred from the passage at all. Hence, [2].
Q 41
Refer to paragraph 3. No matter which of the cultures mentioned (Olmec culture, Chavín
de Huantar, Moche culture, or Monte Albán and
Teotihuacán) were the earliest powerful states, they were in what are now the countries of Peru and Mexico, so [1] is true. [2] is also true,
as it is the author's conclusion in the last paragraph. [4] is stated in the fourth paragraph. Only [2] is untrue: it is stated in the third
Q 42
Refer to the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, where the author says that we need a historian from the ancient New World to tell us
what was going on then. He says so after showing that archaeology is limited when it comes to understanding things like levels of violence
in a past society. In fact, the entire paragraph is about violence in the New World. The implication is that written records by a historian of
the time would have been more useful. So the answer is [2]. [1] is only part of the answer, as the human sacrifices being talked about are
specific examples of violence in the ancient New World. While the author does compare the levels of violence in the ancient New World to
that of the Roman Empire, the comparison is not necessarily the only reason he wants to know more about the former. There is no
evidence in the passage suggesting [4]. Hence, [3].
Q 43
According to the paragraph, science and technology are two different things, and it is possible for a society to emphasize one while
neglecting the other. The author does not provide an opinion as to which of the two is more important. So options [1] and [2], which
elevate science and technology respectively, over the other, cannot be inferred from the paragraph. [4] contradicts the paragraph, which
provides examples of societies in which science and technology did not go hand-in-hand. Only [3] can be inferred from the paragraph:
though we presume that science and technology are inseparable, they may not always be so. Hence, [3].
Q 44
Option [4] talks of a different (though related) problem, not an overpopulation problem. Option [2] suggests that underpopulation is a
problem in highly urbanized societies, which does not answer the question at all. While [1] may seem at first to be a valid reason, it applies
only to certain countries, not the world as a whole (which is the focus of the argument). The best answer is [3]: while the population growth
rate may have finally slowed, this simply means that the population is not growing as fast as it was in the past, but it is still growing. So
overpopulation is still a problem. Hence, [3].
Q 45
The author's argument is that the general idea that 'the bigger the brain, the smarter the animal', is not necessarily correct. Therefore [2],
which argues the opposite, weakens his argument. [1], which points out a flaw in the author's example, obviously does not support his
argument either. [3] is somewhat vague: the 'things' that chimpanzees can do may not be anything that requires intelligence. Only [4]
supports the author's argument, by showing that larger brain size among the Neanderthals did not correspond to greater intelligence vis-avis
humans. Hence, [4].
Q 46
The point the author is trying to make is that machines do not think in the same way as humans do (despite popular fictional depictions to
the contrary). So [2], which suggests the opposite, is incorrect. The paragraph is about the way machines think, not their emotional
capabilities (or the lack of the same), so [4] is not a suitable example either. [3] is not an example per se, as it does not show how machines and humans think differently, only that they do so. Only [1] is a suitable example, as it shows how humans and computers
understand and use language differently. Hence, [1].
Q 47
The passage is about water's many qualities, including its properties as a solvent, so [1] is a partial title. While this passage does discuss
water in terms of its importance of life, that is not the main topic of the passage. So [2], which implies that life is composed mainly of water,
is incorrect. The passage talks about the properties of water that make it special as a chemical, such as the shape of its molecule, the
temperature range in which it remains liquid, the fact that it expands when it freezes, etc. So the most suitable title is [3]. Hence, [3].
Q 48
Water's surface tension, molecular structure and chemical composition are all discussed in paragraph 2. But there is no mention of its
boiling point in the entire passage. Hence, [1].
Q 49
According to paragraph 2, water is liquid over a relatively large temperature range, not a narrow one, so [2] is incorrect. [3] is an incorrect
reading of the last paragraph, which describes a hypothetical situation. There is no basis for inferring [4]; in fact, the last sentence of
paragraph 4 suggests it is incorrect. Only [1] can be inferred from the passage: from paragraph 1, from the last sentence of paragraph 3,
and from the reference to water's 'life-giving properties' in paragraph 2. Hence, [1]
Q 50
Explanation:
The passage does not mention any relation between the difference in the density of water when solid and when liquid and its properties
as a solvent. So neither [1] nor [2] can be inferred. According to the third paragraph 'the polarized electrical charge of a water molecule is
also a key factor in water's remarkable properties as a solvent'. The implication is that the greater the polarization, the better a liquid is as
a solvent. Hence, [3]
Q 51
When followed by 'with', 'correspond' means 'to communicate by letters'; in the context of A, the correct preposition after 'correspond'
should be 'to', to denote 'to match up with'. In B, the verb 'processed' is unnecessarily in the past tense, when the rest of the sentence is in
the present tense. In C, the correct preposition after 'reflecting' should be 'off', not 'of'. Only statements D and E are fully correct. Hence,
[DE].
Q52
Statement B has a modifier error: the modifier 'A replacement for the ancient and dilapidated church of Santa Reparata' refers to 'the new
cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore', so the latter should be placed immediately adjacent to the former in the sentence. The sentence should be rephrased as: 'A replacement for the ancient and dilapidated church of Santa Reparata, the new cathedral of Santa Maria del
Fiore was intended by its designers to be one of the largest in Christendom.' There is a spelling error in C: the correct word should be
'timber', meaning 'wood', not 'timbre', which is a quality of sound. The article 'the' is missing from before 'more difficult' in E. Only A and D
are fully correct. Hence, [AD].
Q 53
There is a punctuation error in A: there should be a comma after 'Charles Ryder', so that the entire phrase 'the protagonist and narrator of
the story' is set off from the main sentence with commas. In E, the correct idiomatic expression should be 'path crosses' rather than 'path
meets'. Only B, C and D are fully correct. Hence, [BCD].
Q 54
The use of the article 'the' before 'most' in A is incorrect: 'most distinguished' is a verb phrase, so it cannot be preceded by an article.
'Risking' in C is incorrect, as it should have been followed by an object; alternatively, the word could have been replaced with the noun
form 'risk'. There is a subject-verb disagreement in D: the subject of the plural verb 'indicate' is the singular noun 'use', so 'indicates'
should replace 'indicate'. The clause 'whose ... water' in E is wrongly in the active voice; the correct verb form in it should be 'had been
tempered'. Thus, only B is fully correct. Hence, [B]
Q 55
Throughout this passage, the author talks about improving the design of ordinary devices, as well as complex machines, in order to make
them easier to understand and use. So he is clearly not indifferent to the practical uses of the machines/devices, and thus [4] can be ruled
out. There is no suggestion whatsoever that he thinks that people are too dependent on machines/devices, so [1] is incorrect as well. Both
[2] and [3] say nearly the same thing, but since [3] frames the point in terms of design – which is the focus of this passage – it is the better option. Hence, [3].
Q 56
Refer to the first sentence of the second paragraph: the door example is meant to illustrate poor design in simple, everyday devices.
There is no suggestion that the author is not sincere when he talks about having trouble opening doors, so [4] cannot be inferred. [1]
implies that the author does not understand the difference between pulling and pushing doors, which is too extreme. [2] is the author's
reaction to the problem in question, not the reason for it. The reason is [3]: doors lack an intuitive design that show which way they are to
be opened. Refer to the last two sentences of paragraph 2. Hence, [3].
Q 57
Option [1] contradicts the author's point in the last paragraph. The point made in [4] is not discussed in the passage at all, so we cannot
tell whether the author would agree with it or not. While the author would probably agree with [3], it is not mentioned in the passage either.
But he would definitely agree with [2]: he states clearly in paragraph 4 that the design of machines does not capitalize on humans'
strengths such as imagination, creativity and common sense. Hence, [2].
Q 58
The author states in paragraph 3 that instruction manuals should not be necessary for simple machines/devices, so he would not
consider [i] to be good design. In the same paragraph, he suggests that appliances with too many functions are pointless, so [ii] is wrong
as well. In the last sentence of paragraph 2, he states that labels should not be needed (at least for simple devices like doors) – the design
should be intuitive enough to be understood on its own. So [iii] is incorrect as well. The suggestion he provides for improving door design
without destroying the aesthetics implies that he does not necessarily believe that looks should be sacrificed for function. So he would not
agree with [iv] as well. Hence, [4].
Q 59
Explanation:
According to the paragraph, we have trouble holding very large numbers in our minds, like thousands and above. The example of the
guessing game shows that we have some trouble estimating even with hundreds. Thus [3], which talks only about millions and more, is
incorrect. [2], which says that it is 'impossible' for us to imagine numbers above a hundred, is too extreme. [4] wrongly describes the
guessing game. Only [1] correctly summarizes the paragraph. Hence, [1].
Q 60
Explanation:
According to the passage, Rupert Baxter was Lord Emsworth's former secretary not current one, but [2] fails to make this distinction, and
[4] implies the opposite. The passage talks only about Lord Emsworth's dislike of Rupert Baxter, and not vice versa, so [1], which states
that they both disliked each other, is incorrect. Only [3] correctly summarizes the paragraph. Hence, [3].
Q61
Option [4] states that engineers have trouble designing logical machines, which contradicts the paragraph. [2] wrongly states that
engineers 'know' that other people are not always logical. [1] fails to mention an important point: that the reason people cannot understand
the machines that engineers design is that these machines are too logical. Only [3] correctly summarizes the main points of the
paragraph. Hence, [3].
Q 62
Explanation:
The author's attitude towards the prayer experiment cannot be called 'neutral' or 'objective', since the author's sarcastic remark 'What a
surprise' in the last paragraph shows that he expected the experiment to fail. Nor is his attitude 'respectful', as he calls it a 'silly enterprise'.
He may or may not be 'fascinated' by the experiment, but this cannot be inferred from the passage. His attitude can be best described as
'sceptical and mocking': for example, the first sentence of the third paragraph suggests that he thinks that the experiment deserved the
ridicule it got; the reference to 'God doing a bit of smiting' in the last paragraph also suggests that he is mocking the whole idea. Hence,
[3]
Q 63
Francis Galton's investigations are mentioned in the first paragraph. He analysed whether the fact that so many people prayed for the
health of the royal family made the latter healthier than average (and found that it was not so). So he tried to investigate if people's health
was directly (not inversely) proportional to the number of people praying for it. Note that [2] is one of the aims of the experiment described
in the rest of the passage, while [1] isn't mentioned at all. Hence, [3].
Q 64
The author of this passage simply reports on an experiment regarding the efficacy of prayer; he did not conduct it himself. So the passage
cannot be called an experiment or even a study, and thus [1] and [2] are incorrect. [4] is extreme: though the author is sceptical and
mocking of the experiment conducted in this passage, we cannot infer this to mean that he is denouncing the concept of prayer itself;
rather, he may be simply ridiculing the notion that prayer can be scientifically studied. [3] best describes the passage, as the author
reports on the failure of a scientific experiment that set out to study the effectiveness of prayer. Hence, [3].
Q 65
According to the second paragraph, 'the physicist Russell Stannard threw his weight behind' the experiment; that does not necessarily
mean he designed it. So [1] cannot be inferred. According to the same paragraph, the 'double blind' standards for the experiment were
strictly followed, and no other protocols are mentioned, so [2] is incorrect. All the patients in the experiment received coronary bypass
surgery, so [3] cannot be inferred. Only [4] can be inferred: the patients in Group 3 – the ones who received prayers and did know it –
were affected by the prayers, in the sense that it made them worse, not better, as they were more stressed to learn that people were
praying for their recovery. Hence, [4].
Q 66
At first glance, B stands out as the concluding sentence of this paragraph. D, the opening sentence, states a general principle that is
illustrated by the rest of the sentences in the paragraph. E follows by giving an example of the principle mentioned in D. A and C are
linked, as they all mention examples of crises and leaps forward. 'These' in A must refer to 'fish and giant aquatic reptiles' in C, so we get
a CA link. Thus, the combination is DECAB. Hence, DECAB
Q 67
Explanation:
B is the first sentence. It introduces the language family that English belongs to. E names the rest of the languages in that family. 'These
languages' in D refers to the ones mentioned in E, so D follows immediately after E. C and A are linked due to the reference to 'that name'
in A, which indicates 'Proto-Germanic' mentioned in C. So the correct sequence is BEDCA. Hence, [BEDCA].
Q 68
Explanation:
B cannot be the first sentence: Paul Tudge is introduced by his full name in D, and then mentioned only by his surname in B, so B cannot
precede D. On the other hand, the DB link makes sense, as B elaborates on Tudge's find mentioned in D. The reference to the 'team' links
C and A. E follows from A, as it describes the polar forest mentioned in A. Thus the sequence is DBCAE. Hence, [4].
No comments:
Post a Comment