Category Archives: Exam Prep

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 5.2

Exam Prep, GRE, Quantitative Reasoning

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 5 a shot before reading this!

5.2: Repeating Decimals

In order to see which of these two quantities is greater, we can expand the two decimals by a few place values:

0.717 repeating, expanded to six digits, is 0.717717.
0.71 repeating, expanded to six digits, is 0.717171.

These quantities are the same down to the thousandths place (the third place value after the decimal point), but they differ at the ten-thousandths place, which is underlined in the above equations. Specifically, Quantity A has a greater ten-thousandths digit than quantity B. Because this is the most significant digit in which the quantities differ, quantity A must be greater (answer A).


Math Review Reference

For more on this topic, see the following section of the GRE Math Review:

  • 1.4: Decimals (p. 6)

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 5.1

Exam Prep, GRE, Quantitative Reasoning

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 5 a shot before reading this!

5.1: Transversals and Triangles

Depending on how much you like geometry, this first problem could be nerve-wracking or reassuring. Triangles are hands-down the GRE’s most favorite shape, so it behooves you to get comfortable with them if you aren’t already. There are at least two approaches we can use to solve this one.


Method 1: Transversals

The key to this method is that k and m are parallel. When two parallel lines are intersected by a third line, we wind up with a situation called a transversal of parallel lines. This arrangement has a special property that will help us out: corresponding angles are congruent. This means that for every angle at a given intersection, there is a congruent angle in the corresponding position at the other intersection. Think of it in terms of streets: the “northwest” corner of each intersection is the same. The “southwest” corners also match, and so forth.

Add to this the fact that vertical angles are congruent (this is true for any intersection of two lines), and you get the following:

A transversal of parallel lines forms two intersections.

But how does this fit into the diagram from the problem? Well, let’s forget about angles y and w for a moment and just focus on angles x and z. Imagine extending the left leg of the triangle upward so that it crosses line k, and downward so that it crosses line m. What do we get? A transversal of parallel lines.  The angle that is vertical to x must be congruent to x, and that angle corresponds to z, so all three of these angles must be congruent:

In this transversal, vertical angles and corresponding angles are congruent.

So we’ve shown that x = z. Using the same process, we can also show that angles y and w are congruent. If x = z and y = w, then

x + y = z + w

and the two quantities are equal (answer C).


Method 2: Triangles

The other route of solution depends on that middle angle between x and y. Let’s call it angle t. We know that x + y + t forms a straight angle, which is 180 degrees:

x + y + t = 180

But t is also an interior angle of a triangle, together with angles z and w. These three must also add up to 180:

z + w + t = 180

Because equality is transitive, we can combine the two previous equations to get the following:

x + y + t = z + w + t

Then we subtract t out from both sides to find that

x + y = z + w

which, reassuringly, is the same answer we got with the first method.


Why Two Solutions?

You may wonder why I’m bothering to show multiple methods of solution, when you only need to get the problem right once. With GRE math, it’s always a good idea to have more than one way to solve a problem, in case they surprise you with a variation where one solution method works but the other one doesn’t. In this problem, for example, what if lines k and m weren’t parallel? Method 1 (transversals) wouldn’t work anymore, but Method 2 (triangles) would work just fine.


Math Review Reference

For more on these topics, see the following sections of the GRE Math Review:

  • 3.1: Lines and Angles (pp. 45-46)
  • 3.3: Triangles (p. 47)

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.25

Exam Prep, GRE, Verbal Reasoning

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.25: Dolphins and Boat Paint

It’s time for another round of “Same, Worse, or Better.” The way to approach this problem type (as I explained in my solution to 3.14) is to separate the answer choices into three piles: those that weaken the argument, those that strengthen the argument, and those that have no clear effect. Here, we’re only concerned with those answers that would strengthen the argument; thus, our first goal is to identify and reject the “Weaken” and “No Effect” answers so that we can focus on the most promising answer choices.

A good preliminary step is to identify the argument and try rephrasing it in your own words. In this case, you might come up with something like:

“Compounds in boat paint are contributing to increased dolphin mortality rates. Therefore, banning the paints will cause the mortality rate to drop quickly.”

Note that this argument is a prediction about what will happen if we take a certain course of action, not an ethical judgment about what we ought to do.

Now for the answers. Our first choice, (A), actually weakens the argument, if it has any effect at all. If concentrations of these harmful compounds are dropping, but mortality rates are rising, how can we be sure that the compounds are causing the die-off, or even contributing to it? And if we’re not sure that the compounds are causing the die-off, why should we believe that banning the paints will help?

Answers (B) and (D) are carefully-crafted distractors that blur the difference between a logical argument and an appeal to our emotions. If, as (B) suggests, other sea creatures are harmed by the paints too, then that gives us an added incentive for banning them (assuming we care about sea creatures). But this new information doesn’t affect the validity of the original argument, which only concerned the compounds’ effects on dolphins. The fact that manatees or seahorses are poisoned by the paints doesn’t tell us whether we are correct in blaming them for the dolphin die-off as well, just as the fact that chocolate is poisonous to dogs doesn’t imply that it’s harmful to humans. (D), likewise, attempts to cloud the issue: we can’t use other “marine animals” as the basis for predictions about dolphins. In a way, it’s the reverse of (B): the fact that anemones and clownfish can tolerate the compounds doesn’t mean that the same is true of dolphins. (After all, many types of berries are safe for birds but toxic to humans.) Both of these answers belong in the “No Effect” pile.

Answer (C), in contrast, strengthens the argument by answering a possible objection that someone might raise: “What about all the boat paint compounds that have already been released? Won’t those keep harming the dolphins?” (C) anticipates this line of reasoning and suggests that the compounds already in the ocean (and therefore exposed to water) will pose a threat only for “a few months.” If this is true, and we stop introducing these compounds via boat paint, then the problem should quickly resolve itself. Just as raising questions about an argument weakens it (answer A), anticipating and answering questions is one way to strengthen an argument.

Finally, answer (E) fails to address the original argument that banning the boat paints will lower the mortality rate. If the compounds are getting into the water in the first place, it’s fair to assume that the “manufacturer’s directions” are being disregarded, and banning the paints remains a reasonable course of action. In other words, (E) goes into the “No Effect” pile as well, leaving us with (C) as the only answer that strengthens the argument.

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.24

Exam Prep, GRE, Verbal Reasoning

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.24: Renaissance Prints, pt. 2

This is yet another recurring problem type. I call it “Vocab in Context,” for reasons that will soon become apparent. You’ll see these about once or twice per section, usually as one of multiple questions attached to a medium-sized reading passage.

With “Vocab in Context,” the trick is to focus first on the vocab, then on the context. This particular problem could be paraphrased as follows:

Which of the following five words means the same thing as “passive,” in the context of the passage?

There are two parts to this question, which suggests a two-step approach. In Step 1, we consider each of the answer choices and ask: is this a valid meaning for the target word? In this case, our target word is passive, which our learned friend Dr. Google defines as “accepting or allowing what happens.” With that definition in mind, here’s how the process plays out:

  • (A) Disinterested means “detached, uninvolved, or impartial.” This is a close match for the meaning of passive, so we keep this word.
  • (B) Submissive means “ready to yield to the will of others,” which is close in meaning to passive. Put this one in the keep pile too.
  • (C) Flaccid literally means “limp,” but figuratively it means “dull” and “uninspiring.” This is not a close match, so we discard this answer.
  • (D) Supine literally means “lying face up.” Figuratively, as you might expect, it means “weak” or “yielding” — a good match for passive and therefore a word to keep.
  • (E) Finally, unreceptive means, well, “not receptive,” as in “not open to new ideas.” This is not the same thing as passive, so we can discard this one.

At this point, without even looking at the passage, we’ve managed to eliminate two of the five answer choices. Now, in Step 2, we take all the answers that survived Step 1 and plug them into the sentence to see which one fits the best. Before we proceed, though, look at the definitions of submissive (B) and supine (D) once more. Notice that they’re virtually the same. Just like emerge and coalesce in question 3.5, these two words are too close in meaning for just one of them to be correct. Since they can’t both be right, they must both be wrong.

Even without that consideration, though, disinterested (A) is our winner here. We’re told that the printmakers “reliably record” what’s going on around them — not that they bend or yield (B, D) to rulers, the Church, or any other kind of authority.

Vocab Notes

Struggling to remember the meaning of supine? Med students use this mnemonic: the hand is in supine position when you can scoop soup with it (i.e., when the palm is upward). The opposite of supine is prone, which means “lying face down.”

By the way, disinterested is not the same thing as uninterested, at least for GRE purposes. If you’re disinterested, you’re impartial — you don’t have a direct stake (an interest) in the outcome. Uninterested means you don’t care — you lack interest in what’s going on.

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.23

Exam Prep, GRE, Verbal Reasoning

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.23: Renaissance Prints, pt. 1

Here we have an example of another common Reading Comprehension format. I call this one the “triple true/false” because it presents three answer choices, each of which has to be evaluated separately. Usually, as in this case, the goal is to determine whether each statement is supported by the passage.

The key here is to distinguish between the “orthodox position” and the other positions described in the passage. The “orthodox position” is explained in ll. 4-8. Later on, we learn about a different position — the one taken by art historians Scribner and Moxey. We know that their work is unorthodox for two reasons: it’s contrasted with the orthodox position (l. 9), and the author calls it “pioneering” (also l. 9), which means “novel” or “innovative.”

Now let’s look at the answers. We’re in luck: (A) quotes directly from l. 4, which is part of the description of the “orthodox” view. Similarly, answer (C) just restates ll. 5-7, which also belong to the orthodox position. So both of these answer choices are correct.

What about (B), though? It too quotes from the text (ll. 17-18), but if we read through those last lines carefully, we see that (B) is the opinion of Scribner — the “pioneering” or unorthodox researcher — rather than the orthodox view. This is a devious little move on the GRE’s part, and we’ll see it again in future questions. To avoid falling for it, remember: if a passage introduces multiple viewpoints, we need to be clear about who said what.

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.22

Exam Prep, GRE

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.22: Olfactory Adaptation, pt. 3

Here we’re back to the “one best answer” question format, thanks to the word “primarily.” Because the question asks about the author’s purpose, we can dissect the answer choices using the same two-pronged approach we used in 3.10:

  • is this something the author was trying to do?
  • was it their main purpose?

Begin with (A). Does the author try (anywhere in the passage) to “explain the physiological processes” that underlie long-term olfactory adaptation? No such explanation is offered — only a moment of speculation in lines 26-28. How about (B)? Does the author say anything about what doesn’t happen during “prolonged odorant stimulation?” Again, no. The closest s/he comes is to suggest (in lines 26-28) some things that might happen during “prolonged exposure.”

On to (C). The author does try to show the limitations of short-term olfactory adaptation research, so this answer clears the first of the two hurdles we set up. (We can come back to the issue of “main purpose” later if we need to.) Answer (D) looks good at first, too, since it also concerns the limits of research based on short-term exposure. The trap here is the phrase “brief absences.” The only time we hear about odors that are reintroduced after an absence is in line 8, where the absence is described as “extended.” The author never gives us any information about “brief absences,” let alone frames an argument about them, so (D) can be crossed off the list.

In (E), the word qualify means “to limit or restrict”: if someone expresses their “unqualified support” for a plan or program, that means they support it without any caveats or reservations. Is the author trying to set limits on a statement about chronic (i.e., long-term) exposure? In working through the previous two questions (and answers B through D for the present question), we’ve established that the reverse is true: the author is concerned with the limits of research based on short-term exposure. At this point, we can see that all but one of the answer choices have failed our first test: they are not purposes that the author adopts in the passage. Only answer (C) remains. (For an example of a “primary purpose” question in which both tests are necessary, see 4.9 in the next section.)

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.21

Exam Prep, GRE

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.21: Olfactory Adaptation, pt. 2

This is another instance of the “one right answer” question type, and it’s almost as straightforward as question 3.20. This time, they give us the line number to look for, which usually (not always!) indicates that the information we need is nearby. A quick read through the sentence (lines 11-17) provides us with three basic facts about the “research on olfactory adaptation”:

  • the adaptation is usually short-lived (which is what transient means)
  • the exposures are short, too
  • even with these limitations, researchers can learn a lot about olfactory exposure

We then compare these facts to the answer choices. (A), the correct answer, is substantially the same as the third bullet point above. We might call it a “double bluff”: it looks like the right answer, so people assume it’s a trick, but actually … it’s the right answer. (If you’re familiar with the 1987 cult classic The Princess Bride, this is like that scene with the goblets and the iocaine powder.) Specifically, the wording of (A) closely follows that of the passage, a trait that many test-takers have learned to treat as a warning sign. “Answers that closely resemble the original text,” they reason, “are probably wrong.” This is true, but only because any answer in a standard multiple question is probably wrong: out of a set of five options, only one will be correct. Consequently, it’s best not to invest too much effort in determining whether an answer sounds “too good to be true.” Instead, read it carefully and compare its meaning with what you know from the passage.

The four incorrect answers all fail in ways that should be familiar by now. (B) says “rarely” where the passage says “commonly” (line 7); (C) says that the changes that occur in natural environments are “transient,” but lines 17-21 say that we don’t know that yet. (D) is contradicted by the statement that “brief” exposures also produce receptor fatigue (lines 21-24), and (E) asserts as fact something that the passage describes as an open question (lines 19-21).

 

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.20

Exam Prep, GRE

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.20: Olfactory Adaptation, pt. 1

As usual, we begin by asking whether this question requires us to find a single right answer or to choose the best answer from an array of potentially viable options. The lack of comparative language here (no “most,” “best,” or “primarily”) tells us that we’re looking at the first type of question.

In order to evaluate these answer choices efficiently, we need to find the place in the passage that tells us about “reexposure […] after an extended absence.” Both of these key terms are used in lines 7-10, where we’re informed that the odor continues to be perceived as less intense even after a long absence. This rules out answer (A), which is the opposite of what the passage says, and it confirms (B) as our winner. We’d stop right here on a real exam, but for now we can note that (C) and (D) also contradict the information in lines 7-10. Answer (E) is (no pun intended) a red herring: other forms of sensory adaptation are briefly mentioned at the beginning of the passage, but that’s the last we hear about them.

Vocab Notes

Even if you weren’t familiar with the word olfactory beforehand, you probably worked out from context that it means “having to do with the sense of smell.” By itself this isn’t too remarkable — we use context clues in reading all the time — but it illustrates a useful principle for GRE Verbal problem solving. Reading Comp passages are drawn from a wide variety of subjects and disciplines, and they will often contain words that are specific to those disciplines. Since very few people have taken coursework — let alone majored or minored — in all the subjects they see on the GRE, you will sooner or later have to fall back on this kind of contextual reasoning. The thing to remember is that if these technical terms are required to solve a question, they will be defined, implicitly or explicitly, within the passage.

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.19

Exam Prep, GRE

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.19: “The detective’s conviction …”

This question illustrates another Verbal Reasoning pitfall: the temptation to assume information that seems to fit a scenario, but isn’t provided by the text. Here, we’re given a single sentence about a detective and her suspects, a scenario that practically begs us to “fill in” with stereotypes from movies, literature, and television. Resist that impulse, and focus on the bare facts presented in the text. All we know for certain is that the detective thinks there are “few inept crimes” under her jurisdiction. From that, the most cautious inference we can make — the one that involves the fewest assumptions from outside — is that the detective thinks her suspects are not inept.  Since inept means “unskilled or clumsy,” this would mean that the detective thinks her suspects possess “some degree of skill.”

Of our answer choices, the two closest in meaning to “skill” are acumen (B), which means “sound judgment,” and shrewdness (D), which means “cleverness.” The other four choices, which cast the suspect as dishonest or shifty, are probably more intuitively appealing to most test takers, whose expectations about detectives are primed by CSI and Sherlock Holmes. But that’s the trap: as much as we might be tempted to infer it, nothing in the text tells us that the detective believes her suspects to be dishonest.

Vocab Notes

The four incorrect answer choices in this question all have to do with dishonesty or deception in some way. Evasive (E) means “cagey and indirect,” though not dishonest per se. To equivocate (F) is to speak evasively or ambiguously in the hopes of misleading someone, such as by withholding key facts — telling “the truth,” but not “the whole truth.” (Equivocation reached the status of an art form in early modern England, where it was held to be morally preferable to lying.) Deceit (A) and duplicity (C) both mean “dishonest trickery.”

GRE Solutions Manual, Problem 3.18

Exam Prep, GRE

This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!

3.18: “Although the film …”

How can we describe the films of today as they relate to the unnamed 1940 film in the text? The older film, we’re told, influenced critics’ opinions about cinema, indirectly helping later films to be taken more seriously. As a result, we might say that today’s films benefited from or owe something to the 1940 film.  Both beholden to (A) and indebted to (B) capture this idea (with beholden being a synonym for indebted or obligated). The next two answer choices, derivative (C) and based on (D), may seem attractive. They go too far, though: we don’t know whether the new films borrow anything from the older one in terms of style, technique, story, etc. We only know that critics paid attention to the older film, setting into motion a kind of ripple effect that has benefited today’s films too. Finally, distinguishable (E) and biased (F) are the opposite of what we want, calling attention to what separates the films of different eras instead of explaining what they have in common.