Question:
Passage: Passage A Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the defendant in a criminal case in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. Sometimes a jury's nullification decision is based on mercy for the defendant, sometimes on dislike for the victim. Juries have also sometimes nullified when the defendant engaged in civil disobedience and the jurors agreed with the actions. While instances of jury nullification are probably few, the problems created by the jury's power to nullify are great. First, we do not know how the power is used. Because juries are not required to and typically do not explain their verdicts, it is impossible to say how often nullification occurs. This means that we also do not know how often juries use this power for evil ends rather than for good ones. Second, juries often have insufficient evidence to make a reasoned nullification decision. Evidence that might inform such a decision, such as a defendant's past brushes with the law, usually is not admitted at trial because it is irrelevant to the technical question of guilt or innocence. Third, jurors are not legislators. We have an elected legislature to pass laws and elected or appointed judges to interpret them. The jury is unelected, is unaccountable, and has no obligation to think through the effect an acquittal will have on others. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper reach of the criminal laws. Nevertheless, the place for them to disagree is in public, where the reasons for revisions of the laws can be scrutinized and debated. Passage B Police and prosecutors have discretion to decide which violations of the law to pursue and which to overlook. Even with such discretion, however, these officials can sometimes be overzealous. In such cases, the jury can act as a safety valve and use its own discretion to decide, for example, that a case is too trivial or the circumstances too extenuating for the case to result in a conviction. When a jury nullifies because it does not believe a law should be applied to a particular defendant, the jury can also be viewed as assisting the legislature. Legislatures create general laws both because they cannot foresee every variation that may arise, and because legislators often have competing views about what should be included in legislation. and.so must settle for broad language if any laws are to be passed. Similarly, when a jury nullifies because it believes a law is unjust, it also performs a useful function vis-a-vis the legislature, namely indicating to the legislature that there may be a problem with the law in question.It may happen that a jury will be persuaded to nullify by factors they should ignore, but such instances of nullification are likely to be uncommon. For a jury to agree to nullify means that the case for nullification must be so compelling that all twelve of the jurors, despite their different backgrounds and perspectives, nevertheless agree that nullification is the appropriate course of action.
Q: Which one of the following is a criticism that the author of passage A would be likely to offer regarding the suggestion in passage B that juries are justified in nullifying when they view a case as too trivial to result in a conviction?
Choices:
A.) Jurors may not be aware of all the reasons why a case was brought against a defendant.
B.) Prosecutors rarely bring cases to trial that they regard as trivial.
C.) The members of a jury are unlikely to be in accord in their evaluation of a case's seriousness
D.) Jurors may not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a case.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage A Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the defendant in a criminal case in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. Sometimes a jury's nullification decision is based on mercy for the defendant, sometimes on dislike for the victim. Juries have also sometimes nullified when the defendant engaged in civil disobedience and the jurors agreed with the actions. While instances of jury nullification are probably few, the problems created by the jury's power to nullify are great. First, we do not know how the power is used. Because juries are not required to and typically do not explain their verdicts, it is impossible to say how often nullification occurs. This means that we also do not know how often juries use this power for evil ends rather than for good ones. Second, juries often have insufficient evidence to make a reasoned nullification decision. Evidence that might inform such a decision, such as a defendant's past brushes with the law, usually is not admitted at trial because it is irrelevant to the technical question of guilt or innocence. Third, jurors are not legislators. We have an elected legislature to pass laws and elected or appointed judges to interpret them. The jury is unelected, is unaccountable, and has no obligation to think through the effect an acquittal will have on others. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper reach of the criminal laws. Nevertheless, the place for them to disagree is in public, where the reasons for revisions of the laws can be scrutinized and debated. Passage B Police and prosecutors have discretion to decide which violations of the law to pursue and which to overlook. Even with such discretion, however, these officials can sometimes be overzealous. In such cases, the jury can act as a safety valve and use its own discretion to decide, for example, that a case is too trivial or the circumstances too extenuating for the case to result in a conviction. When a jury nullifies because it does not believe a law should be applied to a particular defendant, the jury can also be viewed as assisting the legislature. Legislatures create general laws both because they cannot foresee every variation that may arise, and because legislators often have competing views about what should be included in legislation. and.so must settle for broad language if any laws are to be passed. Similarly, when a jury nullifies because it believes a law is unjust, it also performs a useful function vis-a-vis the legislature, namely indicating to the legislature that there may be a problem with the law in question.It may happen that a jury will be persuaded to nullify by factors they should ignore, but such instances of nullification are likely to be uncommon. For a jury to agree to nullify means that the case for nullification must be so compelling that all twelve of the jurors, despite their different backgrounds and perspectives, nevertheless agree that nullification is the appropriate course of action.
Q: Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the relationship between the two passages?
Choices:
A.) Passage A denounces a judicial custom,while passage B proposes improvements to that custom.
B.) Passage A surveys a range of evidence about jury behavior, while passage B suggests a hypothesis to explain that behavior.
C.) Passage A offers a critique of a power possessed by juries, while passage B argues in support of that power.
D.) Passage A argues that a problem facting legal systems is intractable, while passage B presents a solution to that problem.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
Choices:
A.) Sociohistorical interpretations of art that claim that art merely reflects the ideals and values of the elite classes are overly simplistic.
B.) There have historically been two distinct ways in which members of the elite classes have had art produced for them.
C.) Sociohistorical critics must engage in a form of Freudian analysis to justify, in light of apparently conflicting evidence, the claim that works of art embody the ideals of the elite.
D.) Historically, patrons of the arts have generally been more interested in what being a patron would do for their reputation than in influencing the development of the arts.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: In using the phrase "something for display" (lines 12-13),the author most probably means art that
Choices:
A.) could be used to attract customers to the patron's business
B.) was meant to create an impression that reflected positively on the patron
C.) provided .the patron with personal satisfaction
D.) was representative of the artist's broader body of work at the time
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: It can be inferred from the passage that the attitude of Matthew Arnold toward the aristocratic and middle classes can best be described as one of
Choices:
A.) scorn
B.) empathy
C.) respect
D.) disappointment
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: The passage raises all of the following as complications for the sociohistorical interpretation of art EXCEPT:
Choices:
A.) artists who subverted the ideals of patrons for reasons of their own
B.) patrons whose taste was unlikely to produce art that endured
C.) patrons who bought artwork solely for the purpose of reselling that artwork for a profit
D.) patrons who unwillingly bought artwork that conflicted with their values
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: The passage suggests that Taruskin's position commits him to which one of the following views?
Choices:
A.) Typically, art that reflects the ideology of the elite is produced by artists who are themselves members of the aristocratic or middle classes.
B.) The most talented artists throughout history have been those whose work embodied the ideology of the elite in hidden ways.
C.) The most successful artists working today are those whose work reflects the ideology of the elite.
D.) If it endures, high art that appears to undermine the ideology of the elite actually supports that ideology in some way.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: The primary function of the third paragraph is to
Choices:
A.) present an argument that weakens the argument made in the second paragraph
B.) draw a definitive conclusion from the claims made in the second paragraph
C.) reject a possible response to the argument made in the first paragraph
D.) identify assumptions relied upon by a type of analysis referred to in the first paragraph
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: The author mentions "Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartments" (lines 18-19) for which one of the following reasons?
Choices:
A.) to show how an artist can subvert the ideals of the patron
B.) to illustrate the influence of religion on the historical development of art
C.) to provide an example that illustrates the understanding of elitism in art favored by sociohistorical critics
D.) to present an example of the most common type of relationship between a patron and an artist
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Most sociohistorical interpretations of are view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. For example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford History of Western Music that one of the defining characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two different ways that art, historically, was "produced by and for political and social elites." The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce something for display. For instance, if one commissions a famous architect to design one's house, that may reflect great credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house impossible to live in. The second way was to create, or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life, like Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartmentscommissioned by Pope Julius II.Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. For this kind of analysis to work,however, it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived, and it must also be the case that we can eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the ideals of the patron for their own reasons. Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called die bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment-engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example. Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
Q: The passage suggests that Matthew Arnold would be most likely to identify which one of the following as the primary reason why, historically, people in the middle class became patrons of the arts?
Choices:
A.) a belief that patronage would ultimately prove profitable
B.) a desire to establish a reputation as a patron of the arts
C.) a belief in the importance of the arts to society as a whole
D.) a dislike for the kind of art typically sponsored by the aristocracy
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
Choices:
A.) Inscription-bearing clay envelopes containing tokens discovered in modem Iraq have provided Schmandt-Besserat with the evidence required to resolve the puzzlement of archaeologists over the sudden appearance of sophisticated crafts.
B.) The discovery of clay tablets bearing inscriptions representing the tokens they contain confirms the belief of Schmandt-Besserat that these tokens served to designate the products given by villagers to their temples.
C.) The discovery Of inscription-bearing clay envelopes containing small tokens confirms Schmandt-Besserat's hypothesis that a language becomes increasingly abstract as the arts and crafts of the people who use the language become more abstract.
D.) Based on her analysis of inscription-bearing clay envelopes containing tokens dating to roughly 4000 B.C., Schmandt-Besserat concludes ,that this system of tokens eventually evolved into an abstract written language??
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: With which one of the following statements about the society in which the clay tokens were used would Schmandt-Besserat be most-likely to agree?
Choices:
A.) Society members regarded whatever was produced by any individual as the common property of all.
B.) Religious rituals were probably less important to the society's members than agriculture and trade were.
C.) The society eventually came to regard the clay tokens as redundant.
D.) Without a readily available supply of raw clay, the society could not have developed a system of representation that used tokens
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: The passage stat es that the writing on clay tablets found in Uruk
Choices:
A.) used relatively few pictographic symbols
B.) eventually evolved into a more abstract and flexible linguistic system
C.) transcribed a language that was much older than archaeologists would have expected
D.) was not deciphered by archaeologists until 1992
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: According to the passage, the token system
Choices:
A.) could be understood only because some tokens were inscribed with symbols known to represent agricultural products
B.) became physically unwieldy and cumbersome as it s users agricultural products became more diverse
C.) was originally thought by most archaeologists to have had a primarily religious function
D.) came to designate a broad range of objects as the crafts of the people who used it became more diverse and sophisticated
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: By characterizing certain cuneiform inscriptions on the clay tablets found in Uruk as "abstract" (line 10) the author most likely means that
Choices:
A.) the inscriptions do not resemble what they designate
B.) the inscriptions refer to general categories rather than specific things
C.) the terms represented by the inscriptions were more ceremonial in nature than most daily speech was
D.) the meaning of the inscriptions is obscure and hard for linguists to decipher
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: It can be inferred from the discussion of clay tokens in the second paragraph that
Choices:
A.) there were many tokens that designated more than one type of item
B.) nonagricultural goods and products came to be preferred as contributions to temple-based pools
C.) the token system was as abstract and flexible as later written languages
D.) some later tokens were less abstract than some earlier ones
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: With which one of the following statements regarding the sign for "sheep" (line 6) would the author of the passage be most likely to agree?
Choices:
A.) The abstract nature of the sign reveals a great deal ab out the political life of the people who used the language expressed by uniform writing.
B.) It could have been replaced without loss of significance by any other sign that was not already being used for something else.
C.) The way in which it represent s it s meaning was not the subj ect of scientific scrutiny prior to that given it by Schmandt-Besserat.
D.) The way in which it represent s it s meaning resulted from the fact that sheep are an agricultural commodity rather than a product of human industry.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for "sheep," for example, is not an image of a sheep, but rather a circled cross, while the sign for "metal" is a crescent with five lines. Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers. At the same time, among prepottery clay artifacts found at archaeological sites along the Jordan and nearby rivers are thousands of small, hand-modeled tokens of fired clay, some dating to before 4000 B.C. Often ignored by archaeologists-some concluded without evidence that they were amulets or game pieces-the tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word. The earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids-and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also inscribed with impressions of tokens in the outer clay, signaling exactly what each envelope contained. Noting that these inscriptions are clearly traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products, Schmandt-Besserat theorizes that the envelopes contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based grain and livestock pools. After 4000 B.C., hundreds of new token forms developed, as a rise in industry boosted the token system. Many forms are figurative, such as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers' crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated. The token system, essentially a system of three-dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3 1 00 B.C.by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The eventual evolution of this system into mature writing, Schmandt-Besserat suggests, can be seen in the following example: At first it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil. A little later, it took two markings on a clay tablet to achieve this-one mark, using the outline of the old token, to record the customary unit measure for oil, the jarful, and a second mark to convey the numeral: two oil jars. Eventually, it took three signs on the tablet, one for the numeral 2, one for the standard jarful, and a new symbol that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.
Q: Which one of the following, if true, would most call into question Schmandt-Besserat's theory mentioned in lines 28-33developed?
Choices:
A.) It was customary for villagers who performed services for another person to receive in return a record of a promise of agricultural products or crafted objects as compensation.
B.) Villagers were required not only to contribute goods to central pools but also to contribute labor, which was regularly accounted for.
C.) The more than 100 clay envelopes discovered at archaeological sites along the Jordan come in many different dimensions, thicknesses, and styles of composition.
D.) There is no archaeological evidence suggesting that the tokens in use from ab out 4000 B.C. to 3100 B.C. were necessarily meant to be placed in clay envelopes.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: By 1970 it was well established that ultraviolet light from the sun contributes to skin cancer. Fortunately, much of the sun's most damaging ultraviolet radiation is screened out by a thin, diffuse layer of ozone-a toxic form of oxygen-in the stratosphere, 1 0 to 25 miles above the earth's surface. During the 1 970s, however, public policy makers worldwide were alerted to the fragility of the ozone layer through the pioneering research and advocacy of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. In the absence of pollutants, stratospheric ozone concentrations should remain stable over time, with natural production and destruction of the gas in rough equilibrium. Molina and Rowland showed how manufactured chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-highly volatile chemicals, millions of tons of which had been used each year in products such as aerosol sprays and refrigerants-chemically attack and deplete the ozone layer, diminishing its effectiveness as a shield against ultraviolet radiation. Studying two freon gases-types of CFCs-they observed that, when released into the lower atmosphere (troposphere), these gases slowly diffuse upward into the stratosphere. Then??, subjected to massive ultraviolet radiation, they break down into their constituent elements, including chlorine. The resulting increase in the concentration of chlorine in the stratosphere is devastating to the ozone layer. Chlorine and ozone chemically react in a way that both destroys the ozone and regenerates the chlorine atoms. As a result of this chemical reaction, each chlorine atom could destroy as many as 1 00,000 ozone molecules before becoming inactive. In 1 974 the two scientists estimated that the atmosphere contained the accumulation of five years of global CFC production. This meant that, given the rate of diffusion and breakdown of CFCs in the atmosphere, the depletion of the ozone layer would continue for years, if not decades, even if the production and use of CFCs were to cease immediately. Recognizing this as a pressing environmental threat, Molina and Rowland became public advocates for a prompt and proportionate public policy response. As a result, Molina was invited to testify before the U.S. Congress and was later appointed to the U.S. National Science Foundation Committee on Fluorocarbon Technology Assessment. Predictably, the work of Molina and Rowland and their advocacy of dramatic policy changes were subjected to attacks by critics, especially scientists with ties to the CFC industry. However, over time their views were corroborated, especially by the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, and this led to the development of an international agreement (the Montreal Protocol of 1 987) to ban the production of ozone-depleting gases. In North America, CFCs were banned in the late 1 970s, leading to a transformation in packaging for consumer spray products and the development of more environmentally friendly refrigerant chemicals.
Q: The information in the passage most helps to answer a which one of the following questions?
Choices:
A.) What was the estimated concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere in 1 987?
B.) Does .any chemical that does not contain chlorine contribute to the destruction of ozone molecules?
C.) In what year did Molina testify before the U.S. Congress?
D.) Which constituent element of CFCs is most damaging to ozone?
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: By 1970 it was well established that ultraviolet light from the sun contributes to skin cancer. Fortunately, much of the sun's most damaging ultraviolet radiation is screened out by a thin, diffuse layer of ozone-a toxic form of oxygen-in the stratosphere, 1 0 to 25 miles above the earth's surface. During the 1 970s, however, public policy makers worldwide were alerted to the fragility of the ozone layer through the pioneering research and advocacy of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. In the absence of pollutants, stratospheric ozone concentrations should remain stable over time, with natural production and destruction of the gas in rough equilibrium. Molina and Rowland showed how manufactured chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-highly volatile chemicals, millions of tons of which had been used each year in products such as aerosol sprays and refrigerants-chemically attack and deplete the ozone layer, diminishing its effectiveness as a shield against ultraviolet radiation. Studying two freon gases-types of CFCs-they observed that, when released into the lower atmosphere (troposphere), these gases slowly diffuse upward into the stratosphere. Then??, subjected to massive ultraviolet radiation, they break down into their constituent elements, including chlorine. The resulting increase in the concentration of chlorine in the stratosphere is devastating to the ozone layer. Chlorine and ozone chemically react in a way that both destroys the ozone and regenerates the chlorine atoms. As a result of this chemical reaction, each chlorine atom could destroy as many as 1 00,000 ozone molecules before becoming inactive. In 1 974 the two scientists estimated that the atmosphere contained the accumulation of five years of global CFC production. This meant that, given the rate of diffusion and breakdown of CFCs in the atmosphere, the depletion of the ozone layer would continue for years, if not decades, even if the production and use of CFCs were to cease immediately. Recognizing this as a pressing environmental threat, Molina and Rowland became public advocates for a prompt and proportionate public policy response. As a result, Molina was invited to testify before the U.S. Congress and was later appointed to the U.S. National Science Foundation Committee on Fluorocarbon Technology Assessment. Predictably, the work of Molina and Rowland and their advocacy of dramatic policy changes were subjected to attacks by critics, especially scientists with ties to the CFC industry. However, over time their views were corroborated, especially by the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, and this led to the development of an international agreement (the Montreal Protocol of 1 987) to ban the production of ozone-depleting gases. In North America, CFCs were banned in the late 1 970s, leading to a transformation in packaging for consumer spray products and the development of more environmentally friendly refrigerant chemicals.
Q: Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusions of Molina and Rowland concerning the long-term effects of CFCs in the stratosphere?
Choices:
A.) Ozone has been shown to react more violently with chlorine than with many other chemicals.
B.) Current CFC levels in the troposphere suggest that not all nations currently abide by the Montreal Protocol.
C.) The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica continued to grow for years after CFC emissions had almost ceased.
D.) Many scientists who in the 1 970s were highly critical of the research methods of Molina and Rowland have come to accept the soundness of their methods.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: By 1970 it was well established that ultraviolet light from the sun contributes to skin cancer. Fortunately, much of the sun's most damaging ultraviolet radiation is screened out by a thin, diffuse layer of ozone-a toxic form of oxygen-in the stratosphere, 1 0 to 25 miles above the earth's surface. During the 1 970s, however, public policy makers worldwide were alerted to the fragility of the ozone layer through the pioneering research and advocacy of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. In the absence of pollutants, stratospheric ozone concentrations should remain stable over time, with natural production and destruction of the gas in rough equilibrium. Molina and Rowland showed how manufactured chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-highly volatile chemicals, millions of tons of which had been used each year in products such as aerosol sprays and refrigerants-chemically attack and deplete the ozone layer, diminishing its effectiveness as a shield against ultraviolet radiation. Studying two freon gases-types of CFCs-they observed that, when released into the lower atmosphere (troposphere), these gases slowly diffuse upward into the stratosphere. Then??, subjected to massive ultraviolet radiation, they break down into their constituent elements, including chlorine. The resulting increase in the concentration of chlorine in the stratosphere is devastating to the ozone layer. Chlorine and ozone chemically react in a way that both destroys the ozone and regenerates the chlorine atoms. As a result of this chemical reaction, each chlorine atom could destroy as many as 1 00,000 ozone molecules before becoming inactive. In 1 974 the two scientists estimated that the atmosphere contained the accumulation of five years of global CFC production. This meant that, given the rate of diffusion and breakdown of CFCs in the atmosphere, the depletion of the ozone layer would continue for years, if not decades, even if the production and use of CFCs were to cease immediately. Recognizing this as a pressing environmental threat, Molina and Rowland became public advocates for a prompt and proportionate public policy response. As a result, Molina was invited to testify before the U.S. Congress and was later appointed to the U.S. National Science Foundation Committee on Fluorocarbon Technology Assessment. Predictably, the work of Molina and Rowland and their advocacy of dramatic policy changes were subjected to attacks by critics, especially scientists with ties to the CFC industry. However, over time their views were corroborated, especially by the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, and this led to the development of an international agreement (the Montreal Protocol of 1 987) to ban the production of ozone-depleting gases. In North America, CFCs were banned in the late 1 970s, leading to a transformation in packaging for consumer spray products and the development of more environmentally friendly refrigerant chemicals.
Q: Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information in the passage?
Choices:
A.) Skin cancers occur primarily because of excessive absorption of ultraviolet light.
B.) Little or no ozone destruction occurs naturally in the stratosphere unless chlorine is present.
C.) The upward flow of CFCs into the stratosphere occurs mainly in Antarctica.
D.) Regulating the use of CFCs contributes indirectly to lowering the incidence of skin cancer.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: By 1970 it was well established that ultraviolet light from the sun contributes to skin cancer. Fortunately, much of the sun's most damaging ultraviolet radiation is screened out by a thin, diffuse layer of ozone-a toxic form of oxygen-in the stratosphere, 1 0 to 25 miles above the earth's surface. During the 1 970s, however, public policy makers worldwide were alerted to the fragility of the ozone layer through the pioneering research and advocacy of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. In the absence of pollutants, stratospheric ozone concentrations should remain stable over time, with natural production and destruction of the gas in rough equilibrium. Molina and Rowland showed how manufactured chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-highly volatile chemicals, millions of tons of which had been used each year in products such as aerosol sprays and refrigerants-chemically attack and deplete the ozone layer, diminishing its effectiveness as a shield against ultraviolet radiation. Studying two freon gases-types of CFCs-they observed that, when released into the lower atmosphere (troposphere), these gases slowly diffuse upward into the stratosphere. Then??, subjected to massive ultraviolet radiation, they break down into their constituent elements, including chlorine. The resulting increase in the concentration of chlorine in the stratosphere is devastating to the ozone layer. Chlorine and ozone chemically react in a way that both destroys the ozone and regenerates the chlorine atoms. As a result of this chemical reaction, each chlorine atom could destroy as many as 1 00,000 ozone molecules before becoming inactive. In 1 974 the two scientists estimated that the atmosphere contained the accumulation of five years of global CFC production. This meant that, given the rate of diffusion and breakdown of CFCs in the atmosphere, the depletion of the ozone layer would continue for years, if not decades, even if the production and use of CFCs were to cease immediately. Recognizing this as a pressing environmental threat, Molina and Rowland became public advocates for a prompt and proportionate public policy response. As a result, Molina was invited to testify before the U.S. Congress and was later appointed to the U.S. National Science Foundation Committee on Fluorocarbon Technology Assessment. Predictably, the work of Molina and Rowland and their advocacy of dramatic policy changes were subjected to attacks by critics, especially scientists with ties to the CFC industry. However, over time their views were corroborated, especially by the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, and this led to the development of an international agreement (the Montreal Protocol of 1 987) to ban the production of ozone-depleting gases. In North America, CFCs were banned in the late 1 970s, leading to a transformation in packaging for consumer spray products and the development of more environmentally friendly refrigerant chemicals.
Q: Based on the passage, the information yielded by which one of the following experiments would be most useful in determining whether a particular chemical could replace CFCs without damaging the ozone layer?
Choices:
A.) testing to see whether the chemical is capable of reacting with forms of oxygen other than ozone
B.) testing to see what chemical properties the chemical or its constituent elements share with chlorine
C.) testing to see whether the chemical,when released into the lower atmosphere, would react with other chemicals commonly found there
D.) testing the chemical to determine whether it would chemically react with chlorine
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: By 1970 it was well established that ultraviolet light from the sun contributes to skin cancer. Fortunately, much of the sun's most damaging ultraviolet radiation is screened out by a thin, diffuse layer of ozone-a toxic form of oxygen-in the stratosphere, 1 0 to 25 miles above the earth's surface. During the 1 970s, however, public policy makers worldwide were alerted to the fragility of the ozone layer through the pioneering research and advocacy of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. In the absence of pollutants, stratospheric ozone concentrations should remain stable over time, with natural production and destruction of the gas in rough equilibrium. Molina and Rowland showed how manufactured chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-highly volatile chemicals, millions of tons of which had been used each year in products such as aerosol sprays and refrigerants-chemically attack and deplete the ozone layer, diminishing its effectiveness as a shield against ultraviolet radiation. Studying two freon gases-types of CFCs-they observed that, when released into the lower atmosphere (troposphere), these gases slowly diffuse upward into the stratosphere. Then??, subjected to massive ultraviolet radiation, they break down into their constituent elements, including chlorine. The resulting increase in the concentration of chlorine in the stratosphere is devastating to the ozone layer. Chlorine and ozone chemically react in a way that both destroys the ozone and regenerates the chlorine atoms. As a result of this chemical reaction, each chlorine atom could destroy as many as 1 00,000 ozone molecules before becoming inactive. In 1 974 the two scientists estimated that the atmosphere contained the accumulation of five years of global CFC production. This meant that, given the rate of diffusion and breakdown of CFCs in the atmosphere, the depletion of the ozone layer would continue for years, if not decades, even if the production and use of CFCs were to cease immediately. Recognizing this as a pressing environmental threat, Molina and Rowland became public advocates for a prompt and proportionate public policy response. As a result, Molina was invited to testify before the U.S. Congress and was later appointed to the U.S. National Science Foundation Committee on Fluorocarbon Technology Assessment. Predictably, the work of Molina and Rowland and their advocacy of dramatic policy changes were subjected to attacks by critics, especially scientists with ties to the CFC industry. However, over time their views were corroborated, especially by the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, and this led to the development of an international agreement (the Montreal Protocol of 1 987) to ban the production of ozone-depleting gases. In North America, CFCs were banned in the late 1 970s, leading to a transformation in packaging for consumer spray products and the development of more environmentally friendly refrigerant chemicals.
Q: Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information in the passage?
Choices:
A.) Refrigerant chemicals developed as substitutes for CFCs after 1987 release fewer chlorine atoms into the stratosphere than CFCs do.
B.) The Montreal Protocol led to the cessation of CFC production in North America.
C.) CFCs were originally used in refrigeration components because they provided the most energy-efficient means of refrigeration
D.) No refrigerant chemicals other than CFCs had been discovered when Molina and Rowland suggested that CFC production cease.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of peopled preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?-but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many." If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just. But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved. Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement. Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life,want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
Q: According to the passage, Rawls uses which one of the following devices to explain his theory?
Choices:
A.) an empirical study of social institutions
B.) a thought experiment
C.) a deduction from a few basic principles
D.) a process of elimination
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of peopled preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?-but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many." If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just. But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved. Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement. Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life,want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
Q: The purpose of the question in lines 6-8 is to
Choices:
A.) establish that utilitarianism must be true
B.) suggest the intuitive appeal of utilitarianism
C.) characterize utilitarianism as internally contradictory
D.) point out an implausible feature of utilitarianism
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of peopled preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?-but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many." If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just. But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved. Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement. Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life,want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
Q: The author's primary purpose in the passage is to
Choices:
A.) show why a once-dominant theory was abandoned
B.) sketch the historical development of acelebrated theory
C.) argue for the truth of a controversial theory
D.) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of peopled preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?-but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many." If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just. But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved. Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement. Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life,want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
Q: With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?
Choices:
A.) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
B.) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.
C.) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
D.) Unless individuals set aside their ownself-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of peopled preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?-but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many." If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just. But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved. Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement. Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life,want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
Q: The author's stance toward Rawls's theory is most accurately described as one of
Choices:
A.) enthusiasm for its aims mingled with doubts about its practicality
B.) sympathy with its recommendations tempered with skepticism about its cogency
C.) disdain for its pretensions camouflaged by declarations of respect for its author
D.) admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of peopled preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?-but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many." If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just. But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved. Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement. Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life,want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
Q: Which one of the following would, if true, most call into question the claim in lines 49-51 of the passage?
Choices:
A.) People tend to overestimate the resources available for distribution and to underestimate their own needs.
B.) Most people value the fulfillment of their own preferences over the fulfillment of the preferences of strangers.
C.) Some people would be willing to risk acomplete loss of one primary good for the chance of obtaining an enormous amount of another primary good.
D.) Few people believe that they would be satisfied with only a minimum amount of primary goods.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D