OpenOffice-Verbal Flashcards
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies’ new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the representative’s argument depends?
The agency’s prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.
Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency’s criteria for adoption.
The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.
(1) Identify the Question Type
The word “assumption” in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.
(2) Deconstruct the Argument
According to the argument, the adoption agency has awarded the majority of its recent placements to parents who were personally acquainted with agency staff. The argument denies that this discrepancy is a sign of favoritism toward certain applicants, on the grounds that all ten placements were made with parents who surpassed the agency’s (and the law’s) criteria for adoption.
(3) State the Goal
On Find the Assumption questions, we’re looking for something that the author must believe to be true in order to draw the given conclusion. The argument concludes that the agency did not engage in favoritism because all of the chosen parents surpassed the adoption criteria. However, the argument is also assuming that, among all well-qualified applicants, there was no favoritism toward individuals who were personally acquainted with the agency staff.
For example, suppose there were 100 fully qualified families and only 8 of them were personally acquainted with the staff; those 8 happened to be chosen, while only 2 of 92 qualified applicants who were not acquainted with staff were chosen. If that were true, it would undermine the author’s claim that the agency did not show any favoritism. The author must be assuming that this is NOT the case.
Concerned about various forms of workplace harassment, a city attorney’s office instituted a publicity campaign last year encouraging victims of such harassment to come forward and file reports of the harassment. During the year following the inception of the publicity campaign, the frequency of harassment reports filed with the city attorney’s office tripled. The publicity campaign has therefore been successful in its goal to raise awareness and reduce the frequency of harassment in the workplace.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of the passage above?
The increase in harassment complaints has consisted almost exclusively of additional complaints of racial harassment; complaints of other varieties of harassment have not increased significantly.
Although the number of complaints has tripled, the number of complaints that have resulted in financial penalties for the harassers has not increased significantly.
Many individuals who have brought complaints within the past year were previously unaware that the behavior to which they had been subjected was regarded legally as harassment.
The city attorney’s office is not permitted to release details of any complaints to the companies involved, to the courts, or to the general public.
The city attorney’s office originally instituted the campaign in response to falling numbers of workplace harassment complaints.
(1) Identify the Question Type
The “weakens” and “if true” language indicate that this is a Weaken question.
(2) Deconstruct the Argument
The passage concludes, on the basis of an increase in the number of harassment complaints, that awareness has increased and that the frequency of harassment has decreased. The argument, though, provides no information about what happens after a complaint is filed. The author assumes that, because a complaint is filed, the frequency of harassment will therefore decrease, but no evidence in the argument supports this assumption.
(3) State the Goal
To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer needs to provide a new piece of information that makes the conclusion less likely to be true. Some information about what happens after a complaint is filed might weaken the conclusion—perhaps the city attorney’s office doesn’t actually do anything with the complaints. Perhaps the companies in question don’t care and won’t do anything to change the situation.
(4) Work from Wrong to Right
(A) The particular type of harassment complaints being filed does not indicate whether such harassment is ultimately decreasing.
(B) The argument does not address particular punishments or outcomes for the harassers. It’s entirely possible that harassers wouldn’t face financial penalties but still might reduce the harassing behavior for other reasons.
(C) If the publicity campaign has educated these individuals about the nature of workplace harassment, then the argument’s conclusion is strengthened. The campaign did indeed raise awareness.
(D) CORRECT. If the city attorney’s office cannot pursue legal remedies or even tell anyone about the complaints, then it’s less likely that this complaint system will lead to a decrease in the rate of workplace harassment.
(E) Since the passage’s conclusion is concerned only with the results of the publicity campaign, the original motivation behind the campaign is irrelevant.
Although covered in about 11 inches of snow, aviation officials said that conditions on the runway at the time of the emergency landing was acceptable.
aviation officials said that conditions on the runway at the time of the emergency landing was acceptable
the runway conditions during the emergency landing were acceptable according to aviation officials
according to aviation officials, the runway was in acceptable condition during the time of the emergency landing
the runway was in acceptable condition during the emergency landing, according to aviation officials
aviation officials said that conditions on the runway at the time of the emergency landing were acceptable
The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” at the beginning of this sentence should be followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.” The original sentence illogically suggests that “aviation officials” were covered in about 11 inches of snow. Additionally, the plural subject “conditions” does not agree with the singular verb “was acceptable.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” at the beginning of this sentence should be followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.” Note that in the noun phrase “the runway conditions,” the word “runway” acts as an adjective modifying the noun “conditions.”
(C) This choice incorrectly uses the redundant phrase “during the time of” instead of “during.” Further, the placement of “according to aviation officials” makes it unclear whether the officials stated that the runway was “covered in about 11 inches of snow” or that “the runway was in acceptable condition.”
(D) CORRECT. The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” is correctly followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.” Additionally, the phrase “according to aviation officials” is placed at the end of the sentence, unambiguously referring to the main clause (“the runway was in acceptable condition”).
(E) The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” at the beginning of this sentence should be followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.”
Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses. However, widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health. One reason for this is that most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go undetected until it is far advanced. Another reason is that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases.
The statements above, if true, most support which of the following?
Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts.
Private health insurance will no longer be available.
Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations.
Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases.
The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.
The passage states that health savings accounts will undermine the health of the public because people will not use them for preventive care. Furthermore, people who cannot afford them will not be able to receive even basic care such as vaccinations. The correct answer will be a conclusion that can be supported solely by the facts stated in the argument, without relying on outside information or additional assumptions.
(A) The argument does not provide enough information to conclude that wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts. The argument never specifically mentions wealthy individuals, just people in general.
(B) The argument does not provide enough information to conclude that private health insurance will no longer be available. In fact, private health insurance is never mentioned.
(C) The author argues that people will not get regular preventive examinations, and will therefore not receive medical attention until diseases are advanced. This logic, even if true, does not allow us to conclude that most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations.
(D) CORRECT. The argument states that “poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations”. Based on this statement, it is reasonable to conclude that some people without health savings are likely to contract infectious diseases.
(E) The argument does not provide enough information to conclude that the causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented. In fact, neither the link between medical care and health nor documentation of such a link is directly discussed.
Studies show that repeated exposure to an allergen can trigger anaphylaxis. This condition, in which an allergic person becomes overly sensitized to the allergen in question, can provoke a life-threatening reaction via even minimal exposure.
Which of the following is the best analogy for the process described above?
People with unhealthy diets are much more susceptible to conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure than is the general population.
Because minor earthquakes can weaken the existing infrastructure in an area, a series of minor earthquakes sometimes causes much more extensive damage than might otherwise be expected.
Peanut allergy sufferers do not need to ingest peanut products in order to experience an allergic episode; a reaction can also be triggered by touching peanuts or peanut oils.
Scientists theorize that global warming, a gradual increase in the average worldwide temperature, is the primary cause of the increasing occurrence of extreme weather patterns in the last two decades.
Drivers who speed regularly are more likely to be caught than those who speed only occasionally.
A person’s immune system becomes hypersensitive to an allergen via repeated exposure. We need to find an example in which a series of minor events (repeated exposure to an allergen) can ultimately provoke a typically unexpected, extreme response (a life-threatening reaction due to only minimal exposure to the allergen).
(A) In this situation, a behavior (diet) over time leads one to become more susceptible to other chronic conditions (diabetes and high blood pressure). This does not mimic the idea of a series of minor events causing an unexpected and extreme reaction; rather, the process described is reasonably to be expected.
(B) CORRECT. A series of minor earthquakes (minor events) weaken the existing infrastructure. The weakened infrastructure then allows a minor earthquake to do much greater damage than expected (unusual and extreme).
(C) This choice is tempting because it addresses an allergy health issue, but we want to mimic the structure of the argument, not merely the topic. This choice says that someone with an allergy can have a reaction by touching the substance to which he or she is allergic; this is to be expected and cannot reasonably be considered unexpected. Further, this choice does not discuss any sudden onset of extreme susceptibility to the allergen.
(D) In this situation, a gradual occurrence (warming weather) leads to severe weather conditions. We are not given information as to whether the increase in temperature is “minor,” nor do we have reason to know whether the response (severe weather) should be considered unexpected.
(E) It is reasonable to expect that the more someone speeds, the more likely she or he is to get caught; this situation cannot reasonably be considered unexpected, nor is the result (getting caught) extreme.
A recent and popular self-help book wryly notes that if adolescence was not so painful, it would have a droll comedic aspect, at least in retrospect. was not so painful, it was not so painful, they were not so painful, they were not so painful, it were not so painful, being one
The original contains a verb mood error. “If adolescence was” is improper subjunctive. “Was” should not be used in an “if” clause indicating a hypothetical condition. “If adolescence were” is correct.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice has a verb mood error. “Was” should not be used in an “if” clause indicating a hypothetical condition; “were” would be correct. Also, the plural “they” can not refer to the singular “adolescence.”
(C) This choice correctly employs the subjunctive mood by stating “if adolescence were.” However, the plural “they” can not refer to the singular “adolescence.”
(D) CORRECT. The “if” clause properly uses the subjunctive mood, “if adolescence were.” The singular “it” refers to the singular “adolescence.”
(E) This choice correctly employs the subjunctive mood by stating “if adolescence were.” However, “being one” is wordy and awkward; using “it” is preferable. “Being” is virtually always wordy and incorrect.
Every year many people become ill because of airborne mold spores in their homes. After someone becomes ill, specialists are often hired to eradicate the mold. These specialists look in damp areas of the house, since mold is almost always found in places where there is substantial moisture. To minimize the risk of mold poisoning in the home, then, one should make sure to keep all internal plumbing in good condition to prevent leakage that could serve as a breeding ground for mold.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Mold itself does not create moisture.
Most homeowners know enough about plumbing to determine whether theirs is in good condition.
Mold cannot grow in dry areas.
No varieties of mold are harmless.
Mold spores cannot be filtered from the air.
(1) Identify the Question Type
The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.
(2) Deconstruct the Argument
The argument indicates that mold spores in the home can cause illness; experts brought in to eradicate the mold check damp areas because mold is almost always found in places where there is substantial moisture. The author then concludes that preventing leakages via plumbing problems will minimize the risk of mold poisoning.
(3) State the Goal
On Find the Assumption questions, we’re looking for something that the author must believe to be true in order to draw the given conclusion. This argument assumes that wet areas occur first, with plumbing leaks cited as one possible clause, causing mold to grow. The argument also assumes that preventing any plumbing leaks will minimize the danger (as opposed to merely reducing it).
(4) Work from Wrong to Right
(A) CORRECT. The argument depends on the assumption that the reason mold and wetness are observed together is that wet areas cause mold growth. If the reverse causation (mold causes wetness) were true, then keeping all plumbing in good condition to prevent leakage might not actually minimize mold growth. Rather, the mold would develop due to some unmentioned reason and then that mold would cause dampness.
(B) If most homeowners know enough about plumbing to determine whether theirs is in good condition, then the recommendation made in this argument would be more useful. However, this is not an assumption on which the argument depends.
(C) The argument says only that mold is almost always found in web places and that preventing leaks would minimize mold poisoning. The argument does not rely on the idea that it is impossible for mold to grow in dry areas.
(D) The argument does not rely on the idea that every variety of mold is harmful; it merely discusses what to do to avoid poisoning from those types of mold that are harmful.
(E) Whether mold spores can be filtered from the air may be relevant to a general discussion about the health effects of mold in the home, but it is not directly relevant to the conclusion here, which focuses on the potential for mold growth via plumbing leaks.
Although William Pereira first gained national recognition for his movie set designs, including those for the 1942 film “Reap the Wild Wind,” future generations will remember him as the architect of the Transamerica Tower, the Malibu campus of Pepperdine University, and the city of Irvine.
including those for the 1942 film “Reap the Wild Wind,” future generations will
like those for the 1942 film “Reap the Wild Wind,” future generations
like that for the 1942 film “Reap the Wild Wind,” future generations will
including that for the 1942 film “Reap the Wild Wind,” future generations will
including those for the 1942 film “Reap the Wild Wind,” future generations
(A) CORRECT. The original sentence is correct as written.
(B) The word “like” is used incorrectly to introduce an example. Using “like” alters the meaning of the sentence, implying that William Pereira’s designs were simply “similar to” the designs for “Reap the Wind.” It is preferable to use the word “including.” The present tense “remember” is incorrectly used with the subject “future generations.” The original sentence was correct to use the future tense “will remember.”
(C) The word “like” is used incorrectly to introduce an example. Using “like” alters the meaning of the sentence, implying that William Pereira’s designs were simply “similar to” the designs for “Reap the Wind.” It is preferable to use the word “including.” The antecedent of the pronoun “that” is the plural “movie set designs,” so the plural pronoun “those” should have been used.
(D) The antecedent of the pronoun “that” is the plural “movie set designs,” so the plural pronoun “those” should have been used.
(E) The present tense “remember” is incorrectly used with the subject “future generations.” The original sentence was correct to use the future tense “will remember.”
Juvenile monkeys that are separated from their mothers will often show self-destructive behavior, such as picking at their fur or refusing to eat. These behaviors are the most prevalent in monkeys that are caged alone, are somewhat less prevalent when the monkeys are caged with other, unrelated juveniles and adult males, and are the least prevalent, but still observable, when the monkeys are caged with a mixed-gender group of unrelated, adult monkeys.
Which of the following hypotheses best explains the phenomenon described above?
The presence of unrelated juvenile and adult male monkeys causes more self-destructive behavior in juvenile monkeys than does the presence of a mixed-gender group of unrelated adult monkeys.
The presence of unrelated adult female monkeys is more important to juvenile monkeys in alleviating distress caused by being separated from their mothers than is the presence of unrelated juvenile monkeys.
The presence of unrelated adult male monkeys is threatening to juvenile monkeys, causing self-destructive behavior similar to that caused by the separation of juvenile monkeys from their mothers.
The presence of unrelated adult female monkeys serves as a suitable substitute for a juvenile monkey’s mother following a separation from the mother.
Juvenile monkeys that display self-destructive behavior will engage in this behavior the least when reunited with their mothers, and will engage in this behavior slightly more when caged with adult female monkeys who are not their mothers.
The question stem presents a series of premises about how juvenile monkeys behave when separated from their mothers; specifically, the behaviors are more or less prevalent under various conditions. We are asked for the hypothesis that would best explain the variations in behavior. Although we are not asked to draw a conclusion from the premises, we should look for an explanatory hypothesis using the same constraints: assume as little as possible and take no unnecessary logical leaps.
(A) This choice confuses alleviation of self-destructive behavior with causation of that behavior. The question stem attributes the behavior to separation from the mother, not to the presence of other monkeys.
(B) Correct. We are told that separation from the mother causes self-destructive behavior that is lessened some in the presence of other, unrelated juveniles and adult males, and lessened even more in the presence of a mixed group of unrelated, adult monkeys. Since adult male monkeys are present in both cases, they may be disregarded as a cause of the difference in degree of self-destructive behavior. The best hypothesis is that the distressed juveniles are more comforted by the adult females than by the other juveniles.
(C) We have no reason to believe that any other monkeys are “threatening”—merely that some monkeys alleviate distress better than others.
(D) This choice is on the right track, but its language is too strong. We know that the presence of unrelated adult female monkeys is more soothing than the presence of other monkeys to a juvenile that has been separated from its mother, but we don’t know if the juveniles are comforted to such a degree that the unrelated females are a “suitable substitute.” (For instance, perhaps the presence of other juveniles alleviates the behavior by 5%, and the presence of the unrelated females by 10%).
(E) The situation described does not mention reuniting monkeys with their mothers. Stay away from choices that require making additional, unnecessary assumptions.
The new rules in the school’s code of conduct—including penalties for children hoarding candy and rewards for those sharing it—has been criticized to encourage children to share opportunistically rather than altruistically.
hoarding candy and rewards for those sharing it—has been criticized to encourage
who hoard candy and reward those who share—have been criticized for encouraging
hoarding candy and rewarding them when they share—have been criticized because of encouraging
hoarding candy, rewarding those who share it—has been criticized for encouraging
who hoard candy and rewards for those who share it—have been criticized on the grounds that they encourage
This sentence describes two features of the new rules. First, they include penalties for children who hoard candy; second, they include rewards for children who share the candy. To express these ideas effectively, the sentence should employ proper parallelism. Idiomatic expressions should be used correctly. Finally, the sentence should contain a main verb that agrees with the plural subject rules.
(A) The modifier to encourage…, while not ungrammatical, is nonsense here: it suggests that the purpose of criticizing the new rules is “to encourage children to share opportunistically rather than altruistically”. Instead, the sentence should state basically the opposite: the critics claim that the rules encourage this kind of behavior. Also, the singular verb has been criticized does not agree with the plural subject rules.
(B) The noun penalties is not parallel to the verb reward. (Instead, there is parallelism between hoard and reward, illogically suggesting that the children who hoard candy “reward those who share”.)
(C) Hoarding candy is not parallel to when they share, and penalties is not parallel to rewarding. The pronoun them appears to refer to the previously mentioned children hoarding candy, rather than to children in general. Finally, because of encouraging is unidiomatic.
(D) Penalties is not parallel to rewarding. Furthermore, rewarding is expressed as a modifier, illogically suggesting that, by hoarding candy, the selfish children are somehow causing the altruistic children to be rewarded. Finally, the singular verb has been criticized does not agree with the plural subject rules.
(E) CORRECT. Penalties and rewards are properly parallel, as are children who hoard candy and those who share it. The plural verb have been criticized agrees with the plural subject rules. On the grounds that they encourage… is idiomatically correct and clarifies the basis of the criticism.
The cost of manufacturing automobiles is considerably greater in Esteria than in Burdistan. In order to stimulate Esterian consumers’ purchases of domestically manufactured automobiles, the Esterian government has historically charged taxes on automobiles manufactured in Burdistan. Five years ago, however, the Esterian government dropped those taxes; in those five years, the number of workers employed in Esterian automobile factories has decreased by 30%. Therefore, the number of vehicles manufactured and sold in Esteria must have decreased in the last five years.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
Many Esterian automobile manufacturers operate factories outside Esteria.
The number of automobile workers in Burdistan has not increased during the same period.
Because vehicles manufactured in Esteria have a reputation for high quality, many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles since the tax was abolished.
Esterian automobile manufacturers have lowered the price of their automobiles so as to remain competitive with the manufacturers in Burdistan.
Recent innovations in automated automobile-manufacturing technology have approximately halved the number of worker-hours required to produce most automobiles.
The passage takes the 30% decrease in the number of workers employed in Esterian automobile factories as evidence that the actual number of vehicles manufactured in those factories has fallen. Any statement that weakens or severs the connection between those two ideas will weaken the argument.
(A)
The argument deals only with automobiles manufactured inside Esteria. Therefore, factories located outside Esteria are irrelevant, even if those factories are owned by Esterian companies.
(B)
The number of automobile workers in Burdistan is irrelevant to the relationship between Esterian automobile workers and Esterian domestic automobile production. We absolutely cannot assume any type of relationship between the numbers of auto workers in the two countries, since the passage says nothing about auto workers in Burdistan.
(C)
Even if many Esterians have continued to purchase domestically manufactured automobiles, this statement does nothing to contradict the conclusion of the passage. In particular, many other Esterians may have chosen not to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles because of the repealed tax.
(D)
The price of Esterian automobiles is not directly related to the correlation between the number of Esterian automobile workers and Esterian domestic automobile production. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant.
(E) Correct
If this statement is true, then Esterian factories could maintain their pre-innovation production levels even with a 50% decrease in the number of workers. Therefore, if the decrease in the number of workers has only been 30%, it is quite possible that Esteria’s domestic manufacturing of automobiles has remained constant or even increased. In any case, this statement destroys the connection made in the passage between the decrease in the number of workers and a hypothesized decrease in automobile production.
To this day, researchers and theorists debate whether bubonic plague caused The Black Death, a pandemic that swept the world in the middle of the fourteenth century. whether whether or not about whether as to whether if
“Whether” is the most concise way to indicate that researchers and theorists are debating between alternative causes of the pandemic.
(A) CORRECT. This sentence is correct as written for the reason stated above.
(B) “Whether or not” is redundant; “whether” by itself indicates the full meaning.
(C) “About whether” is both redundant and awkward.
(D) “As to whether” is both redundant and awkward.
(E) “If” is used to indicate a condition or a future possibility, but this sentence is not indicating either of these things. “Whether,” which introduces a choice or an alternative, is the correct usage.
Florida’s Gainesville-Hawthorne State Trail, a mixed-use recreation trail paved over an old rail bed, is a curious paradox: it is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is classified as a state park.
is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is not only is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet it is is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet is completely man-made but also has been designed exclusively for human use, yet is is not only completely man-made but also is exclusively designed for human use, yet
The sentence must be both structurally and logically parallel. Structurally, the parallel indicators not only … but also must precede grammatically identical constructions, and the two clauses separated by the coordinating conjunction “yet” must be grammatically parallel as well. In addition, the sentence must be idiomatically correct. In particular, the construction not only … but also is used for two ideas that reinforce one another, while the lone but also (used without not only) is used for two contrasting ideas.
(A) CORRECT. The parallel markers not only … but also are used idiomatically to emphasize logical correlation. The words man-made (which follows not only) and designed (which follows but also) are grammatically parallel: it is man-made and it is designed. Finally, the two main clauses, is not only… and is classified…, are separated by yet and are properly parallel. Since the pronoun it, referring to the trail, is the subject of the first clause, it is also by default the subject of the second; thus no subject is needed between yet and is. The verb is is required, though, to show that the second clause is parallel to the entire first clause; if is is absent, then that construction could be read, improperly, as parallel to designed exclusively for human use.
(B) Write the two parallel portions as separate sentences. It is completely man-made (following not only) is acceptable, but it exclusively designed for human use (following but also) is missing a verb! It should read it is exclusively designed.
(C) The use of but also by itself, without the accompanying not only, illogically suggests that completely man-made and designed exclusively for human use are in contrast to one another. The lack of a verb after yet creates an ambiguity in parallelism: it is unclear whether classified as a state park is parallel to the entire first clause (as intended) or only to exclusively designed.
(D) The use of but also by itself, without the accompanying not only, illogically suggests that completely man-made and designed exclusively for human use are in contrast to one another.
(E) Write the two parallel portions as separate sentences. It is completely man-made (following not only) is acceptable, but it exclusively designed for human use (following but also) is missing a verb! It should read it is exclusively designed. The lack of a verb after yet creates an ambiguity in parallelism: it is unclear whether classified as a state park is parallel to the entire first clause (as intended) or only to exclusively designed.
Some public health advocates have become concerned that directly advertising prescription drugs to consumers is likely to cause some patients to pursue certain medications that may be inappropriate for their individual health situation. However, marketing to consumers should not be limited as long as physicians also continue to be educated about such medications, because a physician’s prescription is still required in order for patients to obtain these drugs.
Which of the following facts would most directly address the concern articulated by the public health advocates?
After a certain number of years, prescription drugs lose patent protection and other companies can then manufacture and market generic forms of the drugs.
Consumers can now find technical drug information on the Internet, information that previously would have been available only to physicians.
Physicians are also exposed to prescription drug advertisements that are directed toward consumers.
Physicians are not susceptible to pressure from patients in determining appropriate courses of treatment.
Fewer than 15% of patients are likely to remember and ask by name for specific drugs that they see advertised in magazines or on television.
The public health advocates are concerned that patients are exposed to advertisements about prescription drugs, and may pursue these drugs even though the drugs may not be clinically appropriate. It is argued that, because physicians must prescribe the drugs in question, patient pursuit of these prescription drugs is irrelevant. However, patients who pursue and request particular prescription drugs may be able to encourage or induce a physician to prescribe drugs that he or she might not have prescribed otherwise.in the absence of such encouragement.
(A) No new or relevant information is presented; the drugs still require prescriptions and drug companies are still marketing to consumers. (Note: don’t confuse generic with non-prescription; patent protection isn’t related to over-the-counter status.)
(B) Although consumers may be able to access the technical information previously only available to doctors, most consumers do not have the relevant education to properly interpret that technical info and determine whether the drug would be appropriate for themselves. Also, there is a difference between information the consumer “can…find” and information that reaches the consumer even when he or she is not looking (advertising). This choice does not directly address the public health advocates’ concerns.
(C) This answer choice states the obvious possibility that physicians may also see the advertisements for prescription drugs directed toward consumers. This does not address the public health advocates’ concerns that the patients might exert undue influence on the doctors.
(D) CORRECT. This answer choice directly addresses the public health advocates’ concern by establishing that physicians are not susceptible to patient pressure in prescribing inappropriate drugs.
(E) The public health advocates might still be concerned even if only one or two percent of patients fall into this category; the argument doesn’t specify. Further, this choice only says that few patients will remember specific drug names; it is possible that many other patients will ask for a certain type of drug or will be able to describe the drug well enough for the physician to decipher the name.
When ethnic groups intermarry, it is likely to result in cognitive benefits; indeed, perhaps already having contributed to the Flynn effect, which has been the worldwide rise in average IQ score by as much as three points per decade over most of the past century.
When ethnic groups intermarry, it is likely to result in cognitive benefits; indeed, perhaps having contributed to the Flynn effect, which has been
The intermarriage of ethnic groups is likely to result in cognitive benefits and may indeed have contributed to the Flynn effect,
When ethnic groups intermarry, they are likely to result in cognitive benefits and may indeed have contributed to the Flynn effect, the name given to
Ethnic groups that intermarry will likely result in cognitive benefits; indeed, possibly having contributed to the Flynn effect,
The intermarriage of ethnic groups, likely to result in cognitive benefits, indeed have possibly contributed to the Flynn effect, the name given to
This sentence describes a likely positive consequence of the intermarriage of ethnic groups: specifically, such intermarriage is likely to produce cognitive benefits for the resulting offspring. The sentence then goes on to speculate that the intermarriage of ethnic groups may also be one of the causes of the “Flynn effect,” the recent global increase in average IQ.
(A) The pronoun it has no antecedent. In context, that pronoun is clearly intended to refer to the intermarriage of ethnic groups, but the noun intermarriage is not present in the sentence. The portion of the sentence following the semicolon is not a complete sentence—it contains neither a subject nor a verb—and so the sentence as a whole is a fragment.
(B) CORRECT. The sentence properly uses a compound verb construction (is likely … and may) to describe two possible facts about the kind of intermarriage described. The noun modifier the worldwide rise is properly used to explain what the Flynn effect is. Finally, the sentence is accurate in meaning: the intermarriage of ethnic groups, not the ethnic groups themselves, is likely to result in cognitive benefits.
(C) This sentence illogically states that the ethnic groups themselves, rather than the intermarriage between them, are likely to result in cognitive benefits. The combination of a cause in the present tense (are likely to) and its effect in the present perfect (have contributed) is illogical, implying that the effect somehow preceded the cause. Finally, the phenomenon may have contributed to the Flynn effect itself; the phenomenon did not contribute to the name given to the effect.
(D) This sentence illogically states that the ethnic groups themselves, rather than the intermarriage between them, will likely result in cognitive benefits. The portion of the sentence following the semicolon is not a complete sentence—it contains neither a subject nor a verb—and so the sentence as a whole is a fragment.
(E) The singular subject the intermarriage does not agree with the plural verb have contributed. Finally, the phenomenon may have contributed to the Flynn effect itself; the phenomenon did not contribute to the name given to the effect.
