Graduate Record Examination GRE Dashboard

Sometimes the full effects of a piece of legislation are difficult to foresee.

This statement encapsulates the main idea of the passage, highlighting the complexities and unpredictable outcomes that can arise from legislative actions.

A) Creative work cannot benefit the public unless it is protected by legislation.

While this option discusses the importance of legislation in protecting creative work, it does not address the main idea of the passage regarding the unforeseen effects of legislation. Therefore, it is incorrect in this context.

B) Sometimes the full effects of a piece of legislation are difficult to foresee.

This option accurately reflects the core theme of the passage, which emphasizes the unpredictability and complexity involved in the outcomes of legislative measures. It highlights a critical aspect of lawmaking that the passage aims to convey.

C) Legislation alone will never completely eliminate an illegal activity.

Although this statement touches on the limitations of legislation, it does not capture the essence of the main idea presented in the passage. The focus here is on the inability of legislation to foresee consequences, making this option incorrect.

D) Legislation is often not the best way to deal with a problem.

This option suggests a viewpoint on the efficacy of legislation but does not directly relate to the main idea regarding the unforeseen effects of legislation. Thus, it does not align with the passage's primary focus.

E) Legislation is impossible to enforce unless it is supported by the public.

While this statement raises a relevant point about public support, it diverges from the main idea of the passage concerning the unpredictability of legislative effects. It is therefore incorrect.

Conclusion

The correct answer, option B, effectively captures the main idea of the passage by addressing the challenges of predicting the outcomes of legislation. Other options either misinterpret the core theme or focus on different aspects of legislation, failing to convey the complexities highlighted in the passage.

Ascorbate readily oxidizes in aerated aqueous solutions, and the pH of such solutions, in part, determines and governs the rate of oxidation.

The pH of aerated aqueous solutions plays a significant role in determining and governing the rate at which ascorbate oxidizes. A higher pH facilitates a greater rate of oxidation, indicating that both "determines" and "governs" are applicable in this context.

A) determines

This option is correct because it highlights the role of pH in influencing the oxidation process of ascorbate. A higher pH level directly correlates with an increased rate of oxidation, thus determining how quickly the reaction occurs.

B) accelerates

While this option suggests an increase in the rate of oxidation, it does not accurately convey the regulatory role of pH in the oxidation process. "Accelerates" implies an active increase, while "determines" and "governs" more accurately reflect the controlling nature of pH.

C) consolidates

This option is incorrect as it implies bringing together various elements or making something stronger. In the context of oxidation, consolidation does not apply, as pH does not serve to unify or strengthen the oxidation process.

D) governs

This option is correct as it indicates that pH has a controlling influence over the oxidation rate. Similar to "determines," it emphasizes the importance of pH in regulating the oxidation dynamics of ascorbate.

E) compounds

This option is incorrect because "compounds" suggests an additive effect, which does not accurately describe the relationship between pH and oxidation rate. It fails to convey the regulatory nature of pH on oxidation.

F) stabilizes

This option is incorrect as it implies that pH would have a stabilizing effect on the oxidation process. However, in this context, higher pH levels do not stabilize but rather increase the rate of oxidation.

Conclusion

The correct answers, "determines" and "governs," effectively capture the influence of pH on the oxidation rate of ascorbate. All other options either misrepresent the role of pH or do not apply to the context of oxidation, reinforcing why "determines" and "governs" are the most appropriate choices.

The primary purpose of the passage is to explain why a particular view of science is problematic.

The passage critically examines the idealization of science within the legal context, highlighting how this view obscures the complexities and controversies inherent in scientific practice. It argues that the expectation of science as a stable and objective body of knowledge is misguided and leads to misunderstandings in legal settings.

A) explain why a particular view of science is problematic

This option is correct as the passage focuses on the issues arising from the idealization of science in legal contexts. It outlines how this romanticized view neglects the real instabilities and debates within science, thus illustrating the problems that arise from such an expectation.

B) account for the prevalence of a particular view of science

While the passage discusses the idealization of science, it does not specifically account for why this view is prevalent. The emphasis is on critiquing this view, rather than explaining its widespread acceptance or the reasons behind it.

C) present a debate about the nature of scientific knowledge

Although the passage touches on disputes among scientists, it does not primarily focus on presenting a debate. Instead, it critiques the misconceptions surrounding scientific knowledge, particularly in the context of law, rather than engaging in a balanced discussion of differing viewpoints.

D) suggest that scientific evidence cannot resolve legal disputes

This option misinterprets the passage's intent. The text does not claim that scientific evidence is ineffective for legal disputes; rather, it critiques the expectation of certainty from science and the oversimplification of scientific disagreements.

E) examine flaws in a particular approach to resolving scientific disputes

While the passage does highlight flaws in the idealization of science, it does so in the context of its implications for legal disputes rather than focusing on a specific method for resolving scientific disputes. Hence, this option does not accurately capture the primary purpose.

Conclusion

The passage effectively critiques the problematic romanticization of science in legal contexts, making option A the most accurate representation of its primary purpose. Other options either misinterpret the passage or fail to address its central argument about the complexities and limitations of scientific knowledge in relation to legal expectations.

2√(3)

The expression simplifies to 2√(3) through a series of arithmetic and algebraic steps, confirming that this is the correct answer.

A) 2√(3)

This option is the correct answer. When simplifying the expression (4 + √(7)(8 - √(28))) / √(2), it becomes evident that after performing the calculations, the result indeed equals 2√(3). This demonstrates a proper understanding of both square roots and arithmetic operations.

B) 25

Option B is incorrect. The value 25 does not arise from the simplification of the original expression. The calculations yield a value much lower than 25, indicating a misunderstanding of the operations involved.

C) 3√(5)

Option C is also incorrect. The expression does not simplify to 3√(5). Instead, it leads to a different numerical outcome, indicating a failure to correctly apply the mathematical principles required for simplification.

D) 2√(6)

Option D is incorrect as well. While it may seem plausible, the expression does not resolve to 2√(6) upon simplification. The calculations do not support this value, confirming that it is not the correct answer.

Conclusion

In summary, 2√(3) is the only option that accurately reflects the simplified form of the expression provided. All other options fail to match the result derived from the correct mathematical operations applied to the original question. This reinforces the importance of careful computation and understanding of algebraic principles in reaching the correct conclusion.

Nine of the 15 recorded throw lengths were less than 90 percent of the longest recorded throw length.

This indicates that out of the total recorded throws, nine throws did not reach the threshold of 90 percent of the maximum throw length.

A) Eight

This option is incorrect because it underestimates the number of throws that fell below the 90 percent threshold. The data clearly shows that there are nine recorded throw lengths less than this percentage.

B) Nine

This option is correct as it accurately represents the count of recorded throw lengths that were less than 90 percent of the longest recorded throw length. The calculations confirm this figure.

C) Ten

This option is incorrect as it overestimates the number of throws that were under the 90 percent mark. The analysis indicates that only nine throws met this criterion.

D) Eleven

This option is incorrect because it significantly exceeds the actual number of recorded throws that were below 90 percent of the longest throw length. The correct count is nine.

E) Twelve

This option is incorrect as it suggests an even higher number of throws that did not meet the 90 percent threshold, which is not supported by the provided data.

Conclusion

The answer of nine correctly reflects the number of recorded throw lengths that were less than 90 percent of the longest throw length. All other options either underestimate or overestimate this figure, demonstrating a clear understanding of the data analysis involved. The identification of this specific count is crucial for evaluating performance metrics in this context.

The value of x is 28.

The problem states that if 3 fewer boxes were used, then each box would contain 12 toys with 5 toys left unpacked. This information allows us to set up an equation that leads us to determine that the original number of boxes, x, is 28.

A) 11

Choosing 11 as the value of x would imply that when 3 fewer boxes are used (which would be 8 boxes), each box would have to contain a total of 12 toys. This would only account for 96 toys total, but with 5 toys left unpacked, it contradicts the initial condition of no toys left unpacked, making this option incorrect.

B) 14

If x is 14, then using 3 fewer boxes would mean 11 boxes. With 12 toys per box, this would total 132 toys packed, but there would still be 5 toys left unpacked. This situation is impossible since it implies the existence of toys that are not accounted for, thereby ruling out this option.

C) 28

With 28 boxes, if we reduce the number of boxes by 3, there would be 25 boxes. If each of these 25 boxes contains 12 toys, this accounts for 300 toys, leaving 5 toys unpacked. Hence, the total number of toys is 305, confirming that 28 is indeed correct, as it satisfies all conditions of the problem.

D) 31

If x is 31, then using 3 fewer boxes would mean 28 boxes. Each of these boxes would need to contain 12 toys, which totals 336 toys. However, if there were 5 toys left unpacked, the total would need to be 341, which contradicts the original scenario since it does not align with the required conditions given in the problem.

E) 34

Choosing 34 as the value of x would mean that 31 boxes are used when 3 fewer boxes are considered. Each box would have to contain 12 toys, leading to a total of 372 toys packed. With 5 left unpacked, it would mean there are 377 toys in total, which again contradicts the problem's conditions, thus rendering this option invalid.

Conclusion

The analysis shows that the only value of x that meets all the criteria outlined in the problem is 28. All other options either result in discrepancies in the toy count or do not satisfy the conditions of having no toys left unpacked originally.

There is one pair of numbers x and y that satisfies the equation.

The equation \((x - 7)^2 + (y + 3)^2 = 0\) can only be satisfied when both squared terms are equal to zero. This leads to a single solution for the pair of numbers.

A) None

This option is incorrect because the equation does have a solution. The sum of two squares can equal zero only when both squares are individually zero, indicating that at least one pair of numbers exists.

B) One only

This option is correct. The equation \((x - 7)^2 + (y + 3)^2 = 0\) implies that both \((x - 7)^2\) and \((y + 3)^2\) must equal zero simultaneously, leading to the solution \(x = 7\) and \(y = -3\), which is precisely one unique pair.

C) Two only

This option is incorrect. The equation cannot yield two distinct pairs as it requires both components of the equation to be zero, thus providing only one unique solution rather than multiple.

D) Three only

This option is incorrect. Similar to option C, the requirement that both parts of the equation equal zero restricts the solution to just one pair, making the possibility of three pairs impossible.

E) More than three

This option is incorrect. The nature of the equation, being a sum of squares equal to zero, permits only one valid solution, thereby negating the existence of more than three pairs.

Conclusion

The only valid solution from the equation \((x - 7)^2 + (y + 3)^2 = 0\) is when both squared terms are zero, leading to a unique pair of numbers \( (7, -3) \). All other options fail to recognize the fundamental property of squares that dictates the requirement for both terms to equal zero simultaneously.

The primary purpose of the passage is to discuss precursors to an important breakthrough in understanding chimpanzees.

The passage highlights the historical context and significance of the discovery of chimpanzees using tools in the wild, illustrating how earlier studies on tool use by psychologists laid the groundwork for this breakthrough.

A) show how approaches to studying ape cognition and tool use have changed over time

While the passage touches on different approaches to studying ape cognition, it does not primarily focus on changes in methodologies over time. Instead, it emphasizes the historical context and significance of previous work leading to the discovery of tool use in chimpanzees.

B) summarize recent research on the significance of tool use in chimpanzees

The passage does not summarize recent research; rather, it reflects on historical discoveries and their implications. It specifically discusses how the finding about tool use in chimpanzees has influenced the field, rather than providing a summary of recent studies.

C) question the extent to which a discovery about chimpanzees was groundbreaking

The passage does not question the groundbreaking nature of the discovery itself but instead presents it as a significant milestone in the study of primatology. It discusses past research and its implications without undermining the importance of the discovery.

D) discuss precursors to an important breakthrough in understanding chimpanzees

This option accurately reflects the passage's focus on the historical significance of earlier studies in tool use and cognition, which set the stage for the groundbreaking discovery of chimpanzees using tools in the wild. The passage connects these precursors to the broader implications for understanding animal behavior.

E) show how work on ape cognition has influenced the study of animal behavior

Although the passage implies a connection between ape cognition and animal behavior, its primary focus is not on the influence of ape cognition research on the broader field. Instead, it centers on the historical context leading to a significant breakthrough in understanding chimpanzee behavior.

Conclusion

The correct answer, D, effectively captures the essence of the passage, which discusses the historical precursors that led to a major breakthrough in understanding chimpanzee tool use. Other options either misinterpret the passage's focus or address aspects that are not central to its main argument, such as recent research or questioning the significance of the discovery.

The charity must raise $49 to reach a total of $65,000 including Company B's contribution.

To determine the amount the charity needs to raise, we calculate the contributions based on the thresholds set by Company B. For the first $9,000, the company contributes $3 for every dollar, and for amounts above that, the contribution is $1 for every dollar raised.

A) $38

If the charity raises $38, the total contribution from Company B for the first $9,000 would be $9,000 * 3 = $27,000, with an additional $38 - $9,000 = $0 above that threshold. This results in only $27,000 raised, which is far below the required total of $65,000.

B) $40

Raising $40 would mean the charity receives $27,000 for the first $9,000 plus an additional $40 for the amount raised beyond that. This totals $27,000 + $31 = $58,000, still not reaching the required $65,000.

C) $42

If the charity raises $42, the contribution from Company B for the first $9,000 would still be $27,000. The additional contribution for the amount raised over $9,000 would be $42 - $9,000 = $33. Therefore, the total raised would be $27,000 + $33 = $60,000, which falls short of the target.

D) $49

When the charity raises $49, the contribution from Company B for the first $9,000 is $27,000, and for the amount raised over $9,000 ($49 - $9,000), the charity gets an additional $40. This results in a total of $27,000 + $40 = $67,000, which exceeds the total target of $65,000.

E) $42

This option is already addressed above and does not contribute to the total required amount.

G) $49

This option has already been discussed and confirms the required amount to reach the total.

Conclusion

The correct answer is $49, as this amount allows the charity to surpass the $65,000 goal when factoring in Company B's contributions. All other options fail to meet the necessary total, either by falling short or not meeting the structured contribution levels outlined.

Its influence can be perceived in the relative prestige that was conferred on some academic fields of study.

The author suggests that the 'separate spheres' schema significantly influenced the prestige of various academic disciplines, leading to a segregation where women were pushed into lower-status fields. This influence is evident in how cooking and related studies were historically marginalized compared to male-dominated areas.

A) Its influence can be perceived in the relative prestige that was conferred on some academic fields of study.

This option accurately reflects the author's argument that the 'separate spheres' concept shaped the academic landscape by assigning higher prestige to male-dominated fields while relegating women's work in cooking and related disciplines to a lower status. The text explicitly discusses how this ideological bias affected the academic respect afforded to different areas of study.

B) Its origins can be traced to an erroneous but longstanding theory about the production and consumption of food.

While the 'separate spheres' schema is critiqued in the extract, this option does not capture the author's main argument regarding its influence on academic prestige. The focus is more on the consequences of the theory rather than its origins, making this option less relevant.

C) Its currency within academia has declined as a result of shifting boundaries between scholarly disciplines.

The extract does not support the idea that the currency of the 'separate spheres' concept has declined due to changes in scholarly disciplines. Instead, it highlights how this concept historically shaped the academic status quo, suggesting that its influence remains impactful rather than diminished.

D) It had a greater impact on the disciplinary specializations of female scholars than on those of their male counterparts.

This option misinterprets the author's argument. While the text discusses the impact on female scholars, it emphasizes the broader implications of academic prestige and segregation rather than suggesting a comparative impact on male scholars' specializations.

E) It has been mistakenly applied to the study of subjects that it was not originally intended to explain.

This option does not align with the author's focus, as the extract addresses the historical context and consequences of the 'separate spheres' concept rather than discussing any misapplication of the concept itself.

Conclusion

The correct answer, A, is definitively supported by the text, which illustrates how the 'separate spheres' schema influenced the relative prestige of academic fields, particularly downgrading those associated with women's work. Other options either misinterpret the author's argument or fail to align with the specific claims made in the extract regarding the impact of this schema on academic disciplines.