Question:
Passage: Given the amount of time and effort that curators, collectors, dealers, scholars, and critics spend on formulating judgments of taste in relation to oil paintings, it seems odd that so few are prepared to apply some of the same skills in exploring works of art that stimulate another sense altogether: that of smell. Why is great perfume not taken more seriously? While art professionals are very serious about many branches of literature, architecture, and music, I have yet to find a curatorial colleague who regularly beats a path to the fragrance counter in search of, say, Joy Parfum, the 1930 masterpiece by Henri Almeras.And yet, the parallels between what ought to be regarded as sister arts are undeniable. Painters combine natural and, these days, synthetic pigments with media such as oils and resins, much as the perfumer carefully formulates natural and synthetic chemical compounds. The Old Masters deployed oil paint across the color spectrum, and applied layers on a determining ground and various kinds of underpainting, slowly building up to the surface, completing their work with thin glazes on top. Thus various types of mashed-up earth and vegetable suspended in linseed or poppy oil are brushed over a stretch of woven fabric. They begin to dry, and a picture is born. Its appearance changes over time, because the tendency of oil paint is to become gradually more transparent.So, too, talented "noses" experiment with complex configurations of olfactory elements and produce in symphonic combination many small sensations, at times discordant, sweet, bitter, melancholy, or happy, as the case may be. These combinations change and develop in sequence or in unison as the substance and its constituents evaporate at different rates, some quickly, others slowly, thanks to the warmth of our skin. A brilliant perfumer may thus devise an imaginary world no less powerful, or intimate, than that of a great composer or painter, and in calling on our capacity to discover there some memory of childhood or of a long-forgotten experience, perfumers are in the same business as the artist who creates the illusion of life on canvas.Perhaps one reason that truly great smells are so often undervalued is that perfumes are today made and distributed under the not particularly watchful gaze of a few large corporations. The cynical bean counters in Paris and Zurich do not hesitate to tamper with old formulas, insisting on the substitution of cheap chemical compounds that approximately resemble rarer, better ingredients in an effort to increase profits. They do not tell their customers when or how they do this; indeed, they presume their customers won't notice the difference. Consequently, fine perfume is now hopelessly entangled with the international cosmetic dollar, and ill-served by marketing and public relations.
Q: The author would be most likely to hold which one of the following opinions about Jo;y Parfum by Henri Almeras?
Choices:
A.) It is a fragrance that is appreciated only by people with refined taste.
B.) As a work of art, it is no less important than a great piece of sculpture.
C.) It was the foremost accomplishment of its time in perfume making.
D.) As time goes on, its artistry is appreciated more and more.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Given the amount of time and effort that curators, collectors, dealers, scholars, and critics spend on formulating judgments of taste in relation to oil paintings, it seems odd that so few are prepared to apply some of the same skills in exploring works of art that stimulate another sense altogether: that of smell. Why is great perfume not taken more seriously? While art professionals are very serious about many branches of literature, architecture, and music, I have yet to find a curatorial colleague who regularly beats a path to the fragrance counter in search of, say, Joy Parfum, the 1930 masterpiece by Henri Almeras.And yet, the parallels between what ought to be regarded as sister arts are undeniable. Painters combine natural and, these days, synthetic pigments with media such as oils and resins, much as the perfumer carefully formulates natural and synthetic chemical compounds. The Old Masters deployed oil paint across the color spectrum, and applied layers on a determining ground and various kinds of underpainting, slowly building up to the surface, completing their work with thin glazes on top. Thus various types of mashed-up earth and vegetable suspended in linseed or poppy oil are brushed over a stretch of woven fabric. They begin to dry, and a picture is born. Its appearance changes over time, because the tendency of oil paint is to become gradually more transparent.So, too, talented "noses" experiment with complex configurations of olfactory elements and produce in symphonic combination many small sensations, at times discordant, sweet, bitter, melancholy, or happy, as the case may be. These combinations change and develop in sequence or in unison as the substance and its constituents evaporate at different rates, some quickly, others slowly, thanks to the warmth of our skin. A brilliant perfumer may thus devise an imaginary world no less powerful, or intimate, than that of a great composer or painter, and in calling on our capacity to discover there some memory of childhood or of a long-forgotten experience, perfumers are in the same business as the artist who creates the illusion of life on canvas.Perhaps one reason that truly great smells are so often undervalued is that perfumes are today made and distributed under the not particularly watchful gaze of a few large corporations. The cynical bean counters in Paris and Zurich do not hesitate to tamper with old formulas, insisting on the substitution of cheap chemical compounds that approximately resemble rarer, better ingredients in an effort to increase profits. They do not tell their customers when or how they do this; indeed, they presume their customers won't notice the difference. Consequently, fine perfume is now hopelessly entangled with the international cosmetic dollar, and ill-served by marketing and public relations.
Q: Which one of the following is most analogous to what the author calls the "cynical bean counters" (line 47)?
Choices:
A.) a business executive who convinces her company to invest in art merely for the sake of tax benefits
B.) a director of an art institute who cuts the annual budget because of projections of declining revenues
C.) an art museum curator who caters to popular tastes in choosing works for an exhibition
D.) a movie studio executive who imposes cost-saving production restrictions on a film's director
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Given the amount of time and effort that curators, collectors, dealers, scholars, and critics spend on formulating judgments of taste in relation to oil paintings, it seems odd that so few are prepared to apply some of the same skills in exploring works of art that stimulate another sense altogether: that of smell. Why is great perfume not taken more seriously? While art professionals are very serious about many branches of literature, architecture, and music, I have yet to find a curatorial colleague who regularly beats a path to the fragrance counter in search of, say, Joy Parfum, the 1930 masterpiece by Henri Almeras.And yet, the parallels between what ought to be regarded as sister arts are undeniable. Painters combine natural and, these days, synthetic pigments with media such as oils and resins, much as the perfumer carefully formulates natural and synthetic chemical compounds. The Old Masters deployed oil paint across the color spectrum, and applied layers on a determining ground and various kinds of underpainting, slowly building up to the surface, completing their work with thin glazes on top. Thus various types of mashed-up earth and vegetable suspended in linseed or poppy oil are brushed over a stretch of woven fabric. They begin to dry, and a picture is born. Its appearance changes over time, because the tendency of oil paint is to become gradually more transparent.So, too, talented "noses" experiment with complex configurations of olfactory elements and produce in symphonic combination many small sensations, at times discordant, sweet, bitter, melancholy, or happy, as the case may be. These combinations change and develop in sequence or in unison as the substance and its constituents evaporate at different rates, some quickly, others slowly, thanks to the warmth of our skin. A brilliant perfumer may thus devise an imaginary world no less powerful, or intimate, than that of a great composer or painter, and in calling on our capacity to discover there some memory of childhood or of a long-forgotten experience, perfumers are in the same business as the artist who creates the illusion of life on canvas.Perhaps one reason that truly great smells are so often undervalued is that perfumes are today made and distributed under the not particularly watchful gaze of a few large corporations. The cynical bean counters in Paris and Zurich do not hesitate to tamper with old formulas, insisting on the substitution of cheap chemical compounds that approximately resemble rarer, better ingredients in an effort to increase profits. They do not tell their customers when or how they do this; indeed, they presume their customers won't notice the difference. Consequently, fine perfume is now hopelessly entangled with the international cosmetic dollar, and ill-served by marketing and public relations.
Q: The last paragraph most strongly supports which one of the following statements?
Choices:
A.) Companies that sell perfume pay little attention to what their customers want.
B.) The profitability of a particular perfume is not a good indicator of its quality.
C.) Companies that sell perfume make most of their profits on perfumes in the least expensive price ranges.
D.) The names of the world's best perfumes are not known to most customers.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Given the amount of time and effort that curators, collectors, dealers, scholars, and critics spend on formulating judgments of taste in relation to oil paintings, it seems odd that so few are prepared to apply some of the same skills in exploring works of art that stimulate another sense altogether: that of smell. Why is great perfume not taken more seriously? While art professionals are very serious about many branches of literature, architecture, and music, I have yet to find a curatorial colleague who regularly beats a path to the fragrance counter in search of, say, Joy Parfum, the 1930 masterpiece by Henri Almeras.And yet, the parallels between what ought to be regarded as sister arts are undeniable. Painters combine natural and, these days, synthetic pigments with media such as oils and resins, much as the perfumer carefully formulates natural and synthetic chemical compounds. The Old Masters deployed oil paint across the color spectrum, and applied layers on a determining ground and various kinds of underpainting, slowly building up to the surface, completing their work with thin glazes on top. Thus various types of mashed-up earth and vegetable suspended in linseed or poppy oil are brushed over a stretch of woven fabric. They begin to dry, and a picture is born. Its appearance changes over time, because the tendency of oil paint is to become gradually more transparent.So, too, talented "noses" experiment with complex configurations of olfactory elements and produce in symphonic combination many small sensations, at times discordant, sweet, bitter, melancholy, or happy, as the case may be. These combinations change and develop in sequence or in unison as the substance and its constituents evaporate at different rates, some quickly, others slowly, thanks to the warmth of our skin. A brilliant perfumer may thus devise an imaginary world no less powerful, or intimate, than that of a great composer or painter, and in calling on our capacity to discover there some memory of childhood or of a long-forgotten experience, perfumers are in the same business as the artist who creates the illusion of life on canvas.Perhaps one reason that truly great smells are so often undervalued is that perfumes are today made and distributed under the not particularly watchful gaze of a few large corporations. The cynical bean counters in Paris and Zurich do not hesitate to tamper with old formulas, insisting on the substitution of cheap chemical compounds that approximately resemble rarer, better ingredients in an effort to increase profits. They do not tell their customers when or how they do this; indeed, they presume their customers won't notice the difference. Consequently, fine perfume is now hopelessly entangled with the international cosmetic dollar, and ill-served by marketing and public relations.
Q: Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of the passage?
Choices:
A.) The first paragraph outlines a problem, the middle paragraphs present two consequences of that problem, and the final paragraph attempts to identify the parties that are responsible for the problem.
B.) The first paragraph advances a thesis, the middle paragraphs present a case for that thesis, and the final paragraph considers and rejects one particular challenge to that thesis.
C.) The first paragraph poses a question, the middle paragraphs present a case that helps to justify the posing of that question, and the final paragraph presents a possible answer to the question.
D.) The first paragraph sets out a challenge to received wisdom, the middle paragraphs present a response to that challenge, and the final paragraph presents a concrete example that supports the response.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
Choices:
A.) Although there are limits to the usefulness of stealing thunder, its effectiveness in actual trials has been demonstrated through research conducted by psychologists and legal scholars.
B.) Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is supported by several psychological explanations of how that strategy may influence jurors.
C.) The risks involved in stealing thunder can outweigh the probable benefits when the information to be revealed is too readily available or too negative in its impact.
D.) Research designed to confirm the usefulness of stealing thunder has vindicated lawyers' belief in the value of the technique and has identified the general limitations of the strategy's effectiveness.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that which one of the following is an example of stealing thunder?
Choices:
A.) stressing that one's client, while technically guilty, is believable and that mitigating circumstances should be considered
B.) disclosing in opening statements of a defense against copyright infringement that one's client has in the past been guilty of plagiarism
C.) responding to the opposition's revelation that one's client has a minor criminal background by conceding that this is the case
D.) warning jurors that a client on the opposing side has a serious conflict of interest and cannot be trusted
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: Which one of the following does the author mention as a factor that in some instances probably contributes to the success of stealing thunder?
Choices:
A.) some lawyers' superior skill in assessing jurors' probable reactions to a message
B.) jurors' desire to arrive at a firm view regarding the case they are hearing
C.) lawyers' careful screening of prospective jurors prior to the beginning of courtroom proceedings
D.) the willingness of some lawyers' clients to testify in person about their own past mistakes
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: The author discusses the "cognitive framework" that jurors create (line 58) primarily to
Choices:
A.) suggest that damaging evidence that is framed positively early in a trial will have a greater impact than damaging evidence presented later in a trial
B.) indicate that at least some information mentioned early in a trial can influence the way jurors evaluate information presented later in the trial
C.) theorize that stealing thunder is best done as early as possible in a case, before the opposition has an opportunity to solidify jurors' opinions
D.) indicate that jurors bring into court with them certain attitudes and biases that at least in part inform their opinions during trials
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: The author's attitude regarding stealing thunder can most accurately be described as
Choices:
A.) approving of its use on the grounds that its success is experimentally supported and can be psychologically explained
B.) skeptical of its suitability for use by lawyers without lengthy experience in courtroom strategies
C.) concerned that research results supporting it may omit crucial anecdotal evidence indicating pitfalls in its use
D.) concerned that the technique may become so common that lawyers will fail to recognize its drawbacks
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: The author's characterization of stealing thunder in the passage is based at least partly on both
Choices:
A.) informal surveys of lawyers' clients' reactions to stealing thunder and controlled research based on simulated trial situations
B.) research that was not directly concerned with legal proceedings and research in which subjects participated in simulated trial situations
C.) informal observations of nontrial uses of techniques analogous to stealing thunder and controlled studies of lawyers' courtroom behavior
D.) statistical surveys of lawyers who steal thunder and observations of lawyers' tactics in trials
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: By saying that certain studies have suggested that in some applications, "the technique is, in fact, effective" (line 14), the author most likely means that those studies have given evidence that the technique in question
Choices:
A.) inclines juries to regard the clients of those using the technique more favorably than would be the case if the negative information about them were first divulged by the opposition
B.) is a reliable means, in courtroom settings, of introducing a set of counterarguments that jurors will be able to use in resisting the opposition's subsequent attempts at persuasion
C.) appears generally to succeed as a means of forcefully capturing jurors' attention and thus leading them to focus more attentively than they would otherwise on the lawyer's message
D.) more often than not achieves its goal of timing a negative revelation so as to dramatically precede the opposition's revelation of the same information
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Stealing thunder" is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer's revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one's opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be revealed in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work. For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility. Psychological research suggests that people who reveal information that appears to be against their own best interest are likely to be perceived as more credible and thus may be more persuasive. Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment by previewing, and thus alerting them to, testimony that the opposition plans to present. In psychological experiments, audiences that were previously warned of an upcoming attempt at persuasion became more resistant to the persuasive attempt, forming counterarguments based on the warning. Also, the value placed on a persuasive message is probably much like the value placed on any commodity; the scarcer the commodity, the more valuable it is. A persuasive message will thus increase in value and effectiveness to the extent that it is seen as scarce. In the courtroom, a piece of evidence brought by both the prosecution and the defense, as when thunder is stolen, may be seen as less scarce becoming "old news." Thus, unless that evidence is of overriding consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their "spin" on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who often initially have little information about a case, are usually eager to solidify their position regarding the case. They can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing to guide their subsequent analysis of the trial information. But this also suggests limitations on the use of the technique: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
Q: The passage most strongly implies that many lawyers believe which one of the following concerning decisions about whether to steal thunder?
Choices:
A.) The decision should be based at least partly on a lawyer's knowledge of relevant psychological research findings and legal statistics.
B.) A lawyer should take into account, among other things, whether or not the jurors are already familiar with some of the relevant facts of the case prior to the trial.
C.) The decision should depend on how probable it is that the opposition will try to derive an advantage from mentioning the negative information in question.
D.) A lawyer should be concerned with how readily the negative information can be positively framed, especially if the information is very negative.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage ATo a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. This viewpoint, together with recent findings in neuroscience, radically changes the way we think about the law. The official line in the law is that all that matters is whether you are rational, but you can have someone who is totally rational even though their strings are being pulled by something beyond their control. Indeed, people who believe themselves to be making a free and rational moral choice may really be deluding themselves—a brain scan might show that such a choice correlates with activity in emotional centers in the brain rather than in the region of the brain associated with deliberative problem solving. This insight suggests that the criminal-justice system should abandon the idea of retribution—the idea that bad people should be punished because of their freely chosen immoral acts—which is now dominant as a justification of punishment. Instead, the law should focus on deterring future harms. In some cases, this might mean lighter punishments. If it is really true that we do not get any prevention bang from our punishment buck when we punish some person, then it is not worth punishing that person. Passage B Neuroscience constantly produces new mechanistic descriptions of how the physical brain causes behavior, adding fuel to the deterministic view that all human action is causally necessitated by events that are independent of the will. It has long been argued, however, that the concept of free will can coexist with determinism.In 1954 English philosopher Alfred J. Ayer put forth a theory of "soft determinism." He argued, as the philosopher David Hume had two centuries earlier, that even in a deterministic world, a person can still act freely. Ayer distinguished between free actions and constrained actions. Free actions are those that are caused by internal sources, by one's own will (unless one is suffering from a disorder). Constrained actions are those that are caused by external sources, for example, by someone or something forcing you physically or mentally to perform an action, as in hypnosis or in mental disorders such as kleptomania. When someone performs a free action to do A, he or she could have done B instead, since no external source precluded doing so. When someone performs a constrained action to do A, he or she could have done only A.Ayer argued that actions are free as long as they are not constrained. It is not the existence of a cause but the source of the cause that determines whether an action is free. Although Ayer did not explicitly discuss the brain's role, one could make the analogy that those actions—and indeed those wills-that originate from a disease-free brain are not constrained, and are therefore free, even though they may be determined.
Q: Both passages are concerned with answering which one of the following questions?
Choices:
A.) Is the view that retribution is a legitimate justification for punishment compatible with the findings of neuroscience?
B.) Does scientific research into the brain have implications regarding freedom of the will?
C.) Can an action be free if someone else physically forced the actor to perform it?
D.) Should people be punished for actions that are outside of their control?
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage ATo a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. This viewpoint, together with recent findings in neuroscience, radically changes the way we think about the law. The official line in the law is that all that matters is whether you are rational, but you can have someone who is totally rational even though their strings are being pulled by something beyond their control. Indeed, people who believe themselves to be making a free and rational moral choice may really be deluding themselves—a brain scan might show that such a choice correlates with activity in emotional centers in the brain rather than in the region of the brain associated with deliberative problem solving. This insight suggests that the criminal-justice system should abandon the idea of retribution—the idea that bad people should be punished because of their freely chosen immoral acts—which is now dominant as a justification of punishment. Instead, the law should focus on deterring future harms. In some cases, this might mean lighter punishments. If it is really true that we do not get any prevention bang from our punishment buck when we punish some person, then it is not worth punishing that person. Passage B Neuroscience constantly produces new mechanistic descriptions of how the physical brain causes behavior, adding fuel to the deterministic view that all human action is causally necessitated by events that are independent of the will. It has long been argued, however, that the concept of free will can coexist with determinism.In 1954 English philosopher Alfred J. Ayer put forth a theory of "soft determinism." He argued, as the philosopher David Hume had two centuries earlier, that even in a deterministic world, a person can still act freely. Ayer distinguished between free actions and constrained actions. Free actions are those that are caused by internal sources, by one's own will (unless one is suffering from a disorder). Constrained actions are those that are caused by external sources, for example, by someone or something forcing you physically or mentally to perform an action, as in hypnosis or in mental disorders such as kleptomania. When someone performs a free action to do A, he or she could have done B instead, since no external source precluded doing so. When someone performs a constrained action to do A, he or she could have done only A.Ayer argued that actions are free as long as they are not constrained. It is not the existence of a cause but the source of the cause that determines whether an action is free. Although Ayer did not explicitly discuss the brain's role, one could make the analogy that those actions—and indeed those wills-that originate from a disease-free brain are not constrained, and are therefore free, even though they may be determined.
Q: Which one of the following concepts plays a role in the argument of passage B but not in that of passage A?
Choices:
A.) self-delusion
B.) moral responsibility
C.) mental disorder
D.) causality
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage ATo a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. This viewpoint, together with recent findings in neuroscience, radically changes the way we think about the law. The official line in the law is that all that matters is whether you are rational, but you can have someone who is totally rational even though their strings are being pulled by something beyond their control. Indeed, people who believe themselves to be making a free and rational moral choice may really be deluding themselves—a brain scan might show that such a choice correlates with activity in emotional centers in the brain rather than in the region of the brain associated with deliberative problem solving. This insight suggests that the criminal-justice system should abandon the idea of retribution—the idea that bad people should be punished because of their freely chosen immoral acts—which is now dominant as a justification of punishment. Instead, the law should focus on deterring future harms. In some cases, this might mean lighter punishments. If it is really true that we do not get any prevention bang from our punishment buck when we punish some person, then it is not worth punishing that person. Passage B Neuroscience constantly produces new mechanistic descriptions of how the physical brain causes behavior, adding fuel to the deterministic view that all human action is causally necessitated by events that are independent of the will. It has long been argued, however, that the concept of free will can coexist with determinism.In 1954 English philosopher Alfred J. Ayer put forth a theory of "soft determinism." He argued, as the philosopher David Hume had two centuries earlier, that even in a deterministic world, a person can still act freely. Ayer distinguished between free actions and constrained actions. Free actions are those that are caused by internal sources, by one's own will (unless one is suffering from a disorder). Constrained actions are those that are caused by external sources, for example, by someone or something forcing you physically or mentally to perform an action, as in hypnosis or in mental disorders such as kleptomania. When someone performs a free action to do A, he or she could have done B instead, since no external source precluded doing so. When someone performs a constrained action to do A, he or she could have done only A.Ayer argued that actions are free as long as they are not constrained. It is not the existence of a cause but the source of the cause that determines whether an action is free. Although Ayer did not explicitly discuss the brain's role, one could make the analogy that those actions—and indeed those wills-that originate from a disease-free brain are not constrained, and are therefore free, even though they may be determined.
Q: One purpose of the reference by the author of passage B to David Hume (line 34) is to
Choices:
A.) suggest that the theory of soft determinism is primarily of historical importance
B.) add credence to the theory of soft determinism
C.) add intellectual respectability to the view that the brain should not be described mechanistically
D.) characterize Ayer as someone who is not an original thinker
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage ATo a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. This viewpoint, together with recent findings in neuroscience, radically changes the way we think about the law. The official line in the law is that all that matters is whether you are rational, but you can have someone who is totally rational even though their strings are being pulled by something beyond their control. Indeed, people who believe themselves to be making a free and rational moral choice may really be deluding themselves—a brain scan might show that such a choice correlates with activity in emotional centers in the brain rather than in the region of the brain associated with deliberative problem solving. This insight suggests that the criminal-justice system should abandon the idea of retribution—the idea that bad people should be punished because of their freely chosen immoral acts—which is now dominant as a justification of punishment. Instead, the law should focus on deterring future harms. In some cases, this might mean lighter punishments. If it is really true that we do not get any prevention bang from our punishment buck when we punish some person, then it is not worth punishing that person. Passage B Neuroscience constantly produces new mechanistic descriptions of how the physical brain causes behavior, adding fuel to the deterministic view that all human action is causally necessitated by events that are independent of the will. It has long been argued, however, that the concept of free will can coexist with determinism.In 1954 English philosopher Alfred J. Ayer put forth a theory of "soft determinism." He argued, as the philosopher David Hume had two centuries earlier, that even in a deterministic world, a person can still act freely. Ayer distinguished between free actions and constrained actions. Free actions are those that are caused by internal sources, by one's own will (unless one is suffering from a disorder). Constrained actions are those that are caused by external sources, for example, by someone or something forcing you physically or mentally to perform an action, as in hypnosis or in mental disorders such as kleptomania. When someone performs a free action to do A, he or she could have done B instead, since no external source precluded doing so. When someone performs a constrained action to do A, he or she could have done only A.Ayer argued that actions are free as long as they are not constrained. It is not the existence of a cause but the source of the cause that determines whether an action is free. Although Ayer did not explicitly discuss the brain's role, one could make the analogy that those actions—and indeed those wills-that originate from a disease-free brain are not constrained, and are therefore free, even though they may be determined.
Q: Passage B differs from passage A in that analogous displays an attitude toward the ideas it discusses that is more
Choices:
A.) detached
B.) engaged
C.) ironic
D.) skeptical
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage ATo a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. This viewpoint, together with recent findings in neuroscience, radically changes the way we think about the law. The official line in the law is that all that matters is whether you are rational, but you can have someone who is totally rational even though their strings are being pulled by something beyond their control. Indeed, people who believe themselves to be making a free and rational moral choice may really be deluding themselves—a brain scan might show that such a choice correlates with activity in emotional centers in the brain rather than in the region of the brain associated with deliberative problem solving. This insight suggests that the criminal-justice system should abandon the idea of retribution—the idea that bad people should be punished because of their freely chosen immoral acts—which is now dominant as a justification of punishment. Instead, the law should focus on deterring future harms. In some cases, this might mean lighter punishments. If it is really true that we do not get any prevention bang from our punishment buck when we punish some person, then it is not worth punishing that person. Passage B Neuroscience constantly produces new mechanistic descriptions of how the physical brain causes behavior, adding fuel to the deterministic view that all human action is causally necessitated by events that are independent of the will. It has long been argued, however, that the concept of free will can coexist with determinism.In 1954 English philosopher Alfred J. Ayer put forth a theory of "soft determinism." He argued, as the philosopher David Hume had two centuries earlier, that even in a deterministic world, a person can still act freely. Ayer distinguished between free actions and constrained actions. Free actions are those that are caused by internal sources, by one's own will (unless one is suffering from a disorder). Constrained actions are those that are caused by external sources, for example, by someone or something forcing you physically or mentally to perform an action, as in hypnosis or in mental disorders such as kleptomania. When someone performs a free action to do A, he or she could have done B instead, since no external source precluded doing so. When someone performs a constrained action to do A, he or she could have done only A.Ayer argued that actions are free as long as they are not constrained. It is not the existence of a cause but the source of the cause that determines whether an action is free. Although Ayer did not explicitly discuss the brain's role, one could make the analogy that those actions—and indeed those wills-that originate from a disease-free brain are not constrained, and are therefore free, even though they may be determined.
Q: Which one of the following arguments is most to the argument advanced in passage A?
Choices:
A.) Many word processors are packed with nonessential features that only confuse most users and get in the way of important functions. Word processors with fewer features thus enhance productivity.
B.) Economic models generally presume thatctors in an economy are entirely rational. But psychological studies have documented many ways in which people make irrational choices. Thus, economic models, in theory, should not be able to predict human behavior.
C.) Civil disobedience is justified only in those cases in which civil law conflicts with one's sincere moral or religious convictions. Any attempt to justify civil disobedience on something other than moral or religious grounds is therefore illegitimate.
D.) The existing program for teaching mathematics in elementary schools is based on mistaken notions about what sorts of mathematical concepts children can grasp, and it should therefore be replaced.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: In a recent study, Mario Garcia argues that in the United States between 1930 and I960 the group of political activists he calls the "Mexican American Generation" was more radical and politically diverse than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era's most important scholars, Garcia does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, Garcia's analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation's political diversity is not entirely consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. Garcia acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, Garcia may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, Garcia argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to Garcia, were determined to achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's political activism.
Q: According to the passage, the League of United Latin American Citizens differed from the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People in that the League of United Latin American Citizens
Choices:
A.) encouraged Mexican Americans to speak Spanish rather than English
B.) sought the political goals most popular with other United States citizens
C.) fought for equal rights for resident aliens in the United States
D.) encouraged Mexican Americans to adopt the culture of the United States
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: In a recent study, Mario Garcia argues that in the United States between 1930 and I960 the group of political activists he calls the "Mexican American Generation" was more radical and politically diverse than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era's most important scholars, Garcia does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, Garcia's analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation's political diversity is not entirely consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. Garcia acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, Garcia may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, Garcia argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to Garcia, were determined to achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's political activism.
Q: It can be inferred from the passage that Garcia would most probably agree with which one of the following statements about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?
Choices:
A.) They were more politically diverse than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.
B.) Most of them were more interested in revolution than in liberal reform.
C.) Some of their concerns were similar to those of the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.
D.) Most of them advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: In a recent study, Mario Garcia argues that in the United States between 1930 and I960 the group of political activists he calls the "Mexican American Generation" was more radical and politically diverse than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era's most important scholars, Garcia does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, Garcia's analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation's political diversity is not entirely consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. Garcia acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, Garcia may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, Garcia argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to Garcia, were determined to achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's political activism.
Q: The passage suggests that Garcia assumes which one of the following to have been true of Mexican Americans between 1930 and I960?
Choices:
A.) Increased ethnic consciousness among Mexican Americans accounted for an increase in political activity among them.
B.) The assimilation of many Mexican Americans into United States culture accounted for Mexican Americans' lack of interest in political activity.
C.) Many Mexican Americans were moved to political militancy as a means of achieving full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent.
D.) Increased familiarity among Mexican Americans with United States culture accounted for an increase in political activity among them.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: In a recent study, Mario Garcia argues that in the United States between 1930 and I960 the group of political activists he calls the "Mexican American Generation" was more radical and politically diverse than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era's most important scholars, Garcia does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, Garcia's analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation's political diversity is not entirely consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. Garcia acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, Garcia may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, Garcia argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to Garcia, were determined to achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's political activism.
Q: It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?
Choices:
A.) Their common goal of liberal reform made them less militant than the Mexican American activists of the 1960s and 1970s.
B.) Their common goal of liberal reform did not outweigh their political differences.
C.) Their common goal of liberal reform helped them reach a consensus in spite of their political differences.
D.) They were more or less evenly divided between those favoring assimilation and those favoring cultural maintenance.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: In a recent study, Mario Garcia argues that in the United States between 1930 and I960 the group of political activists he calls the "Mexican American Generation" was more radical and politically diverse than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era's most important scholars, Garcia does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, Garcia's analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation's political diversity is not entirely consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. Garcia acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, Garcia may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, Garcia argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to Garcia, were determined to achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's political activism.
Q: The author of the passage expresses uncertainty with regard to which one of the following?
Choices:
A.) whether or not one can assume that the increase in the number of Mexican Americans born in the United States led to an increase in Mexican American political activism
B.) the nature of the relationship between the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People
C.) whether or not there was general consensus among Mexican American political activists between 1930 and 1960
D.) the extent to which the views of Mexican American activists were shared by the ethnic Mexican population in the United States
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: In a recent study, Mario Garcia argues that in the United States between 1930 and I960 the group of political activists he calls the "Mexican American Generation" was more radical and politically diverse than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era's most important scholars, Garcia does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, Garcia's analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation's political diversity is not entirely consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. Garcia acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, Garcia may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, Garcia argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to Garcia, were determined to achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's political activism.
Q: The passage supports which one of the following statements about ethnic consciousness among Mexican Americans?
Choices:
A.) Ethnic consciousness increases when rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization increase.
B.) Variations in rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization account in part for variations in ethnic consciousness.
C.) Ethnic consciousness decreases when the number of Mexican Americans assimilating into the culture of the United States increases.
D.) Variations in the influence of Mexican American leaders over the Mexican American population at large account in part for variations in ethnic consciousness.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting produced in music. The most piercing dissonances clash in a really atrocious harmony, and a few puny ideas only increase the disagreeable and deafening effect." This remark aptly characterizes the reaction of many listeners to the music of Arnold Schoenberg. But this particular criticism comes from the pen of the dramatist August von Kotzebue, writing in 1806 about the overture to Beethoven's opera Fidelio. Both Beethoven and Schoenberg stirred controversy because of the way they altered the language and extended the expressive range of music. Beethoven, of course, has stood as a cultural icon for more than a century, but that didn't happen overnight. His most challenging works did not become popular until well into the twentieth century and, significantly, after the invention of the phonograph, which made repeated listening possible. Like Beethoven, Schoenberg worked in a constantly changing and evolving musical style that acknowledged tradition while simultaneously lighting out for new territory. This is true of the three different musical styles through which Schoenberg's music evolved. He began in the late-Romantic manner—music charged with shifting chromatic harmonies—that was pervasive in his youth. People who enjoy the music of Brahms ought to love Schoenberg's Verklaerte Nacht, and they usually do, once they get past the fact that they are listening to a piece by Schoenberg. Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis. He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music, and he felt he was a man of destiny; he also did it because he needed to in order to express what he was compelled to express. Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it. In all three styles, Schoenberg operated at an awe-inspiring level of technical mastery. As his career progressed, his music became more condensed, more violent in its contrasts, and therefore more difficult to follow. But the real issue for any piece of music is not how it is made, but what it has to say. If Schoenberg hadn't existed, it would have been necessary to invent him, and not because of the 12-tone system, the seeds of which appear in Mozart. What makes Schoenberg's music essential is that he precisely delineated recognizable and sometimes disquieting emotional states that music had not recorded before. Some of his work remains disturbing not because it is incoherent shrill, and ear-splitting, but because it unflinchingly faces difficult truths.
Q: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
Choices:
A.) Though Schoenberg's music has not always been well received by listeners, it is worthy of admiration for both its expressive range and its technical innovations.
B.) Though Schoenberg's music is more widely appreciated today than when he was alive, it is still regarded by many as shrill and incoherent.
C.) Because of his accomplishments as a composer,Schoenberg deserves to be as highly regarded as Beethoven.
D.) Schoenberg is most important for his invention of the 12-tone technique of musical composition.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting produced in music. The most piercing dissonances clash in a really atrocious harmony, and a few puny ideas only increase the disagreeable and deafening effect." This remark aptly characterizes the reaction of many listeners to the music of Arnold Schoenberg. But this particular criticism comes from the pen of the dramatist August von Kotzebue, writing in 1806 about the overture to Beethoven's opera Fidelio. Both Beethoven and Schoenberg stirred controversy because of the way they altered the language and extended the expressive range of music. Beethoven, of course, has stood as a cultural icon for more than a century, but that didn't happen overnight. His most challenging works did not become popular until well into the twentieth century and, significantly, after the invention of the phonograph, which made repeated listening possible. Like Beethoven, Schoenberg worked in a constantly changing and evolving musical style that acknowledged tradition while simultaneously lighting out for new territory. This is true of the three different musical styles through which Schoenberg's music evolved. He began in the late-Romantic manner—music charged with shifting chromatic harmonies—that was pervasive in his youth. People who enjoy the music of Brahms ought to love Schoenberg's Verklaerte Nacht, and they usually do, once they get past the fact that they are listening to a piece by Schoenberg. Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis. He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music, and he felt he was a man of destiny; he also did it because he needed to in order to express what he was compelled to express. Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it. In all three styles, Schoenberg operated at an awe-inspiring level of technical mastery. As his career progressed, his music became more condensed, more violent in its contrasts, and therefore more difficult to follow. But the real issue for any piece of music is not how it is made, but what it has to say. If Schoenberg hadn't existed, it would have been necessary to invent him, and not because of the 12-tone system, the seeds of which appear in Mozart. What makes Schoenberg's music essential is that he precisely delineated recognizable and sometimes disquieting emotional states that music had not recorded before. Some of his work remains disturbing not because it is incoherent shrill, and ear-splitting, but because it unflinchingly faces difficult truths.
Q: Which one of the following could be said to be disturbing in a way that is most analogous to the way that Schoenberg's music is said to be disturbing in line 54?
Choices:
A.) a comedian whose style of humor is unfamiliar to the audience
B.) a comedian whose material expresses an extreme political philosophy
C.) a comedian whose material is composed primarily of material already made famous by other comedians
D.) a comedian whose humor shines a light on aspects of human nature many people would prefer to ignore
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting produced in music. The most piercing dissonances clash in a really atrocious harmony, and a few puny ideas only increase the disagreeable and deafening effect." This remark aptly characterizes the reaction of many listeners to the music of Arnold Schoenberg. But this particular criticism comes from the pen of the dramatist August von Kotzebue, writing in 1806 about the overture to Beethoven's opera Fidelio. Both Beethoven and Schoenberg stirred controversy because of the way they altered the language and extended the expressive range of music. Beethoven, of course, has stood as a cultural icon for more than a century, but that didn't happen overnight. His most challenging works did not become popular until well into the twentieth century and, significantly, after the invention of the phonograph, which made repeated listening possible. Like Beethoven, Schoenberg worked in a constantly changing and evolving musical style that acknowledged tradition while simultaneously lighting out for new territory. This is true of the three different musical styles through which Schoenberg's music evolved. He began in the late-Romantic manner—music charged with shifting chromatic harmonies—that was pervasive in his youth. People who enjoy the music of Brahms ought to love Schoenberg's Verklaerte Nacht, and they usually do, once they get past the fact that they are listening to a piece by Schoenberg. Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis. He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music, and he felt he was a man of destiny; he also did it because he needed to in order to express what he was compelled to express. Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it. In all three styles, Schoenberg operated at an awe-inspiring level of technical mastery. As his career progressed, his music became more condensed, more violent in its contrasts, and therefore more difficult to follow. But the real issue for any piece of music is not how it is made, but what it has to say. If Schoenberg hadn't existed, it would have been necessary to invent him, and not because of the 12-tone system, the seeds of which appear in Mozart. What makes Schoenberg's music essential is that he precisely delineated recognizable and sometimes disquieting emotional states that music had not recorded before. Some of his work remains disturbing not because it is incoherent shrill, and ear-splitting, but because it unflinchingly faces difficult truths.
Q: The author begins with the quote from Kotzebue primarily in order to
Choices:
A.) give an accurate account of the music of Beethoven
B.) suggest that even Beethoven composed works of uneven quality
C.) suggest that music that is at first seen as alienating need not seem alienating later
D.) give an accurate account of the music of Schoenberg
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting produced in music. The most piercing dissonances clash in a really atrocious harmony, and a few puny ideas only increase the disagreeable and deafening effect." This remark aptly characterizes the reaction of many listeners to the music of Arnold Schoenberg. But this particular criticism comes from the pen of the dramatist August von Kotzebue, writing in 1806 about the overture to Beethoven's opera Fidelio. Both Beethoven and Schoenberg stirred controversy because of the way they altered the language and extended the expressive range of music. Beethoven, of course, has stood as a cultural icon for more than a century, but that didn't happen overnight. His most challenging works did not become popular until well into the twentieth century and, significantly, after the invention of the phonograph, which made repeated listening possible. Like Beethoven, Schoenberg worked in a constantly changing and evolving musical style that acknowledged tradition while simultaneously lighting out for new territory. This is true of the three different musical styles through which Schoenberg's music evolved. He began in the late-Romantic manner—music charged with shifting chromatic harmonies—that was pervasive in his youth. People who enjoy the music of Brahms ought to love Schoenberg's Verklaerte Nacht, and they usually do, once they get past the fact that they are listening to a piece by Schoenberg. Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis. He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music, and he felt he was a man of destiny; he also did it because he needed to in order to express what he was compelled to express. Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it. In all three styles, Schoenberg operated at an awe-inspiring level of technical mastery. As his career progressed, his music became more condensed, more violent in its contrasts, and therefore more difficult to follow. But the real issue for any piece of music is not how it is made, but what it has to say. If Schoenberg hadn't existed, it would have been necessary to invent him, and not because of the 12-tone system, the seeds of which appear in Mozart. What makes Schoenberg's music essential is that he precisely delineated recognizable and sometimes disquieting emotional states that music had not recorded before. Some of his work remains disturbing not because it is incoherent shrill, and ear-splitting, but because it unflinchingly faces difficult truths.
Q: All of the following are similarities between Beethoven and Schoenberg that the author alludes to EXCEPT:
Choices:
A.) They worked for a time in the late-Romanticstyle.
B.) Their music has been regarded by some listeners as incoherent, shrill, and chaotic.
C.) They worked in changing and evolving musical styles.
D.) They altered the language and expressive range of music.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: "Never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting produced in music. The most piercing dissonances clash in a really atrocious harmony, and a few puny ideas only increase the disagreeable and deafening effect." This remark aptly characterizes the reaction of many listeners to the music of Arnold Schoenberg. But this particular criticism comes from the pen of the dramatist August von Kotzebue, writing in 1806 about the overture to Beethoven's opera Fidelio. Both Beethoven and Schoenberg stirred controversy because of the way they altered the language and extended the expressive range of music. Beethoven, of course, has stood as a cultural icon for more than a century, but that didn't happen overnight. His most challenging works did not become popular until well into the twentieth century and, significantly, after the invention of the phonograph, which made repeated listening possible. Like Beethoven, Schoenberg worked in a constantly changing and evolving musical style that acknowledged tradition while simultaneously lighting out for new territory. This is true of the three different musical styles through which Schoenberg's music evolved. He began in the late-Romantic manner—music charged with shifting chromatic harmonies—that was pervasive in his youth. People who enjoy the music of Brahms ought to love Schoenberg's Verklaerte Nacht, and they usually do, once they get past the fact that they are listening to a piece by Schoenberg. Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis. He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music, and he felt he was a man of destiny; he also did it because he needed to in order to express what he was compelled to express. Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it. In all three styles, Schoenberg operated at an awe-inspiring level of technical mastery. As his career progressed, his music became more condensed, more violent in its contrasts, and therefore more difficult to follow. But the real issue for any piece of music is not how it is made, but what it has to say. If Schoenberg hadn't existed, it would have been necessary to invent him, and not because of the 12-tone system, the seeds of which appear in Mozart. What makes Schoenberg's music essential is that he precisely delineated recognizable and sometimes disquieting emotional states that music had not recorded before. Some of his work remains disturbing not because it is incoherent shrill, and ear-splitting, but because it unflinchingly faces difficult truths.
Q: Which one of the following aspects of Schoenberg's music does the author appear to value most highly?
Choices:
A.) the progression through three different styles of composition seen over the course of his career
B.) the depiction of emotional states that had never been captured in music before
C.) the technical mastery of his compositions
D.) the use of the 12-tone system of musical composition
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D