<p>Hello All,</p>
<pre><code> I just went through the 120 verbal review questions in (pg 99 - 160), and I have a few where I disagree with the answers in the back. I’m going to describe them below and I’m hoping some of you can either convince me of the books correctness or verify its incorrectness. Thanks:
</code></pre>
<p>Set 1 Question 42:
The question asks “based on the passage, which would the author likely recommend as a sign of fluency”. I believe what the question is really trying to ask is “what does the author think is a sign of truly good reading skills”, but the usage of the word fluency is problematic in the question stem, because fluency is already precisely defined in the passage. In the passage the author illustrates fluency as something at odds with comprehension (comprehension is the answer btw), and implies the criteria for fluency is the ability to decode words (something you get the sense the author feels is insufficient). To answer C (comprehension) tacitly allows a redefinition of fluency as explicitly stated by the passage, which I find to be…shady. The question should have been something like “If the author could redefine the standards for fluency, what would be the focus of these new standards”. Thoughts?</p>
<p>Set 1 Question 53:
I believe the answer B (“The gas would be hotter”) is wrong given only the information in the passage. The passage makes it clear that there are conditions which effect whether or not the temperature of the gas in a piston will increase:</p>
<pre><code> 1. Is it insulated?
2. Is the compression “slow enough”
</code></pre>
<p>We do not know whether the car engine is insulated (without outside knowledge), and we have no idea where the piston compression rates associated with 20 mph and 40 mph fall in relation to “slow enough”. Based on this we can do nothing but choose choice D (not enough information), despite its somewhat extreme phrasing.</p>
<p>Set 2 Question 4:
Terse indicates “laconic” as the correct answer (which it is),
but acerbic also indicates “pointed” as a correct answer as well. It can be argued that the “belied” indicates the terseness was more apparent than the acerbic sarcasm, but the fact that the question talks about his humor as a classic example indicates that this acerbic sarcasm was indeed apparent. Basically I just felt this was a bad question that has two satisfactory answers supported by the question. I knew what all the words meant and completely understood the question, but found myself vacillating back and forth trying to guess the preference of the question writer.</p>
<p>Set 2 Question 23:
Obviate and eliminate (the correct answers) fit the sentence well, but are slightly dissimilar in definition (make unnecessary vs. get rid of). Diminish and Belittle also fit the sentence well (maybe slightly less well), but these two words are more exactly the same. Hence, by the directions of these types of questions I find both pairs to be equally satisfactory. </p>
<p>Set 2 Question 44:
Restricting knowledge to the passage; I believe choice C to be the most correct. Choice C states the difference (according to the passage) between teleology and Teleology relates to the notion of part Vs. whole. Telos is defined as that for which something is done, ie. the reason; be it particular reason, as in the reason for an eye is seeing, the reason for a house is shelter, etc, or the grand reason for the progression of existence (big T). The issue is one of scope, even stated directly in the passage (“local purpose” vs. “the whole of nature”):</p>
<p>teleology -> reason as pertaining to “local purposes” -> Part
Teleology -> reason as pertaining to “The whole of nature’s” progression -> Whole</p>
<p>Set 2 Question 50:
I believe the lack of a method for evaluation (E) is what undermines Finnis definition of goods (stated explicitly in the passage); choice B is just an example of a situation which is problematic because of choice E. Basically I feel choice B is a specific action that will shine a light on the problem, but choice E IS the undermining problem.</p>
<p>Set 2 Question 55:
I believe the answer A (that the purpose of the passage is to describe the poem) is completely wrong. I understand they are probably checking for a topic vs scope type of thing, but right from the first sentence the focus is directly on the connection between Claf Abercuawg and the Llywarch Hen poetry (choice D), and it never deviates. Furthermore, if the purpose of the passage is really describing the poem…can you tell me the name of the main characters? How about the setting or some major events? Can you tell me anything about the poem itself? No, because there is practically no discussion about the poem itself at all, only to its “place in relation to the larger body of Middle Welsh poetry attribute to Llywarch Hen”. In a full page of text, the only things we know about Claf Abercuawg (that its a “nature poem” and that someone makes reference to a previous life in the court of a king) are mentioned because they enforce the main point of the relationship between poems. </p>
<hr>
<p>Whew; lol. Please let me know your thoughts; maybe this will help allay the stress induced by these practice sets! I hope questions this gray (or at least gray in this bad way) don’t appear on the actual test!</p>