1. Passage Reading 2. Verbal Logic 3. Non Verbal Logic 4. Numerical Logic 5. Data Interpretation 6. Reasoning 7. Analytical Ability 8. Quantitative Aptitude
166. (B) is correct. This is an explanation question. The passage describes the various
benefits of jets--their fuel efficiency, comfort, and ability to fly higher and faster than
smaller planes--but then notes that turboprop planes are enjoying a resurgence. We're
looking for a choice that resolves the apparent paradox.
(A) This choice addresses one of the benefits of jet travel, but it doesn't suggest why turboprop planes have overtaken jets despite the other clear advantages.
(B) This is correct. While it acknowledges the benefits of jet travel, it relates their very popularity with an increasing price that makes other alternatives more attractive.
(C) This is a common form of incorrect choice. Just because the same phenomenon is observed elsewhere does not explain why it is occurring as described in the passage.
(D) This is off-topic. It doesn't matter who owns the planes. We're looking for a choice that explains why jets are losing popularity despite several benefits.
167. Answer: D
This is an inference question. The passage suggests several ways in which dogs are superior to human methods of detecting seizures. We don't know how dogs can detect seizures, but we know some things about their behavior when they do detect seizures, and we know they can do so even when in another room. We also find out that epileptics do not display any number of "noticeable" changes before undergoing a seizure. Consider each choice, looking for a reasonable inference: (A) The passage says nothing about accuracy of prediction, so this is not a reasonable inference.
(B) The passage is limited to information about seizures, so we know nothing about heart attack detection.
(C) This is one possible explanation of dogs' seizure detection abilities, but it is not supported by the passage, since there are other ways in which dogs might detect the onset of a seizure.
(D) This is correct. It is based directly on the information that dogs do not have to be in the same room as a patient. We don't know how they detect the onset of a seizure, but we know it isn't reliant on visual information.
168. Answer: C
Statement (1) is insufficient. We know the total amount she was charged, but not how much she was charged per month. It could be $10 per month for 12 months, or $120 per month for one month.
Statement (2) is also insufficient. This gives us a difference between what actually happened and a hypotetical, but even if it tells us something important, it doesn't give us any information about the length of the membership, such as the total amount she was charged.
Taken together, the statements are sufficient. (2) tells us that each month's membership fee was $30. If she had ended her membership 20 days sooner, that could result in two changes to her total membership fee: if she actually canceled on, say, the 25th of the month, then canceling 20 days sooner means her number of months was rounded up to the same number, and the charge was the same. If she canceled on, say, the 10th of the month, then canceling 20 days sooner means her number of months was rounded up to one less.
Since she would have been charged less, the first option is impossible: if her number of months didn't change, she would've been charged the same amount. So, her number of months would have changed by one, indicating that $30 less represents one month. (1) gives us the total amount of $120, so if the membership fee is $30 per month, she was charged for 4 months. Choice (C) is correct.
169. Answer: D
This is an evidence question. The argument is that, because of the various benefits that go to oil companies and road maintenance, the "true price" of gas is supported by the government. This means that drivers of inefficient vehicles aren't paying their fair share. We're looking for a choice that has an outcome that would either strengthen or weaken the argument (that is, "evaluate the argument").
(A) This is irrelevant to the comparison between high- and low-mileage vehicles. (B) This is related to the topic at hand, but not very directly. The amount spent on gas depends not only on gas efficiency, but also on number of miles driven. Since we don't know whether high- or low-mileage vehicle drivers drive more miles, we can't evaluate the argument with this bit of information.
(C) This is off-topic, though it does relate to things in the argument. It doesn't matter how oil companies make their money--the point is that, thanks to government support, the price of gas is lower than it would otherwise be.
(D) This is correct. The argument is essentially claiming that the benefits of those "hidden costs" are to the advantage of inefficient vehicle drivers. If we knew whether some of those benefits really were accruing to certain types of drivers, we would be better able to evaluate the argument.
170. Answer: D
This is a boldface question. Read carefully for the structure of the argument. The first bolded statement is a claim made by the geologist. The second is the conclusion of the argument, which relies on that claim in the first bolded statement. You'll rarely be able to predict the exact words used in the answer choices, but once you've figured out how the bold statements function, you should be able to identify a choice that matches reasonably well. In this case, choice (D) is correct. Only (B) and (E) refer to the second statement as a conclusion; (B) mistakenly refers to the first statement as something weighing against the conclusion.