In Rc For Understanding Read First Para With Concentration And ............The Rest Can Be Fast...........

As
U Know What Is Happening Just ......... Note A Few Point N Go Ahead
WHENEVER YOU WANT TO SPPED UP ....IF U KNOW A PARTICLUAR ANSWER IS CORRECT FOR 2-3 QUESTION JUST MARK AND MOVE RATHER THAN
VERIFYING ALL...U WILL SAVE A MINUTE AND COVER THE TIME FAST

U HAVE TO GET 6 QUESTION IN 10 MINUTES AS OTHERWISE IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO READ AND DO THE LAST RC PASSAGES WITH THE TIME
CRUNCH ....N U WILL SCREW UR SCORE EVEN IF THEY ARE EASY PSAAGES WITH A SET OF EASY BUT WRONG ANSWERS TOGETHER ...HOWEVER U MAY
LEAVE 1 OR 2 DIFFICULT PSSAGE QUESTION

Because sales dropped in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, in 2009 Vendiflex Corporation slashed its workforce to 2,500, almost 80% fewer than
2008.

almost 80% fewer than 2008 almost 80% less than 2008 almost 80% less than the 2008 workforce almost 80% less than

that of the 2008 workforce almost 80% fewer than that of the 2008 workforce ( THAT REFERS TO SOME QUALITY ...OR SOMETHING ) JUST ADD
SOME FEATURE AND U WILL KNOW IT IS WRONG )

almost 80% fewer than that ( SOME QUALITY ...OR SOMETHING ) JUST ADD SOME FEATURE AND U WILL KNOW IT IS WORONG ) of the 2008 workforce

CHECK WHAT IS 2500 REFERRRING TO ...IT REFERS TO WORKFORCE SO LESS THAN 2008 WORKFORCE .....OR THAT OF 2008 IS CORRECT
PERFECTLY ....TAKE CARE

PERCENTAGES ARE ALWAYS LESSS.....NOT FEWER

Text Explanation
Split #1: the comparison. We need to compare workforce to workforce. Comparing the 2009 workforce to the year 2008 is completely illogical---this is
what choices (A)& (B) do. Choice (C) compares workforce to workforce, which is correct. Choices (D) &(E) compare the 2009 workforce to "that of
the 2008 workforce," in other word, some quality or characteristic of the 2008 workforce---this compares one entire workforce to a
quality or characteristic of another workforce, which is illogical, so (D) & (E) are not correct.
Split #2: "less" vs "fewer". This is a tricky split. We use "fewer" for countable nouns. If we were actually talking about the number of employees, that's
something we can count, so we would have to use "fewer ---e.g. "there were 9850 fewer employees." Here, though, we are referring to a percent or
workers. Well, when we are dealing in percents, we are no longer counting individuals---exactly 1% is not one employee, and might not even be a whole
number of employees. Because percents, as it were, remove us a step from the counting process, the word "less" is preferable.
Choices (B) & (C) & (D) have this correct.
The only possible answer is (C).

Because sales dropped in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, in 2009 Vendiflex Corporation slashed its workforce to 2,500, almost 80% fewer than
that of 2008.

almost 80% fewer than that of 2008 almost 80% fewer than 2008 almost 80% less than 2008 almost 80% less than the

2008 workforce almost 80% less than that of the 2008 workforce

JUST REPLACE THAT OF WITH SOME QUALITY SOME ADJECTIVE OF YOUR OWN OR FROM PASSAGE ...N U WILL KNOW ....THAT OF 2008 WOULD HAVE
BEEN GOOD

Text Explanation
Split #1: the comparison. We need to compare workforce to workforce. Comparing the 2009 workforce to the year 2008 is completely illogical --- this is
what choices (B) & (C) do. Choice (D) compares workforce to workforce, which is correct. Choice (A)compares "that of 2008", where "that" refers to
"workforce", so this also has a correct comparison. Choice (E) compares the 2009 workforce to "that of the 2008 workforce," in other word, some quality
or characteristic of the 2008 workforce --- this compares one entire workforce to a quality or characteristic of another workforce, which is illogical,
so (E) is not correct.

Split #2: "less" vs "fewer". This is a tricky split. We use "fewer" for countable nouns. If we were actually talking about the number of employees, that's
something we can count, so we would have to use "fewer" --- e.g. "there were 9850 fewer employees." Here, though, we are referring to a percent or
workers. Well, when we are dealing in percents, we are no longer counting individuals --- exactly 1% is not one employee, and might not even be a
whole number of employees. Because percents, as it were, remove us a step from the counting process, the word "less" is preferable.
Choices (C)& (D) & (E) have this correct.

The only possible answer is (D).

For Aquinas, Aristotle posited a relation of the physical to the metaphysical that, Aquinas felt, had a deep resonance with Christian theology, and he made
Aristotle's philosophy the basis of his Summa Theologica.

For Aquinas, Aristotle posited a relation of the physical to the metaphysical that, Aquinas felt, had a deep resonance with Christian theology

To Aquinas, the relation of the physical to the metaphysical in Aristotle had a deep resonance with Christian theology To Aquinas, the relation of the

physical to the metaphysical in Aristotle, deeply resonating with Christian theology Aquinas felt that the relation of the physical to the

metaphysical in Aristotle deeply resonated with Christian theology Aquinas felt that the relation of the physical to the metaphysical in
Aristotle had a deep resonance with Christian theology

FOWLLOW V.A.N RULES THEY ARE ACTUALLY HELPFUL IN GETTING THE RIGHT SENTENCE

Text Explanation
Split #1: the subject of the first half. The second half of the sentence, after the underlined section, begins with the pronoun "he". What is the antecedent
of this pronoun? The antecedent should be Aquinas, but in order to make that clear grammatically, Aquinas should be the subject of the sentence.
Moreover, Aquinas is the subject, the star, of the second half, so if he were also the subject of the first half, that would give the entire
sentence rhetorical unity. For a couple reasons, it's important to have Aquinas as the subject of the underlined half of the sentence. Only
choices (D) & (E) do this.
Split #2: noun/verb/adjective. Choices (A) & (B) & (E) have "had a deep resonance with", a noun formulation. Choice (C) has the participle
"resonating", that the first half, which should be a full [noun] + [verb] clause, is simply a noun + a noun modifier, so this is grammatically incorrect. Only
choice (D) has the verb construction, "deeply resonates with", which is far more active, direct, and powerful.
The only possible answer is choice (D).

Relying exclusively on radio communication, both to transmit messages it has encoded and to receive messages, the search for extraterrestrial life by
SETI, the most heavily funded project of this kind, will likely be stymied if this form of communication does not yield any tangible breakthroughs.

messages, the search for extraterrestrial life by SETI, the most heavily funded project of this kind, will likely be messages, SETI has been the

most heavily funded project of this kind, yet the search for extraterrestrial life would likely have been messages, SETI is the most heavily

funded project of its kind, yet the search for extraterrestrial life will likely be messages, SETI is the most heavily funded project of this

kind and would likely, in searching for extraterrestrial life, be messages, SETI is the most heavily funded project of its kind, though the search for
extraterrestrial life would be

Text Explanation
(A) makes the absurd claim that the search for extraterrestrial life is capable of encoding information. Notice the phrase in the non-underlined part: to
transmit message it has encoded. SE
(B) correctly makes sure the participial phrase is modifying SETI. However, would have been shifts the tense to the past. The original sentence clearly
refers to the future: what will happen if SETIs plan does not work out.
(C) correctly makes sure that the participial phrase modifies SETI and that the search for extraterrestrial life is what will be stymied.
(D) It is not SETI itself that will be stymied but the search for extraterrestrial life. Also, we need the future tense will instead of would because we are
speaking about something that will happen.
(E) The use of would instead of will. (See (B)).

Two-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan,known to oppose evolution on religious grounds, became the star witness for the prosecution in
the Scopes Trials.

known to oppose evolution on religious grounds known as an opponent of evolution on religious grounds known for his religiously

based opposition with evolution a person who, it is known, religiously opposed evolution who, it is known, opposed evolution on religious
grounds

ext Explanation
Split #1: active language. This is not definitive, but we suspect that the verb "to oppose" will be preferred over both nouns, "opponent" and "opposition".
Choosing the verb form of a word makes a sentence more active.
Split #2: in (C), "opposition with" is an incorrect idiom. The correct idiom would be "opposition to". (C) is wrong.
Split #3: (D) contains a logic error: it changes the meaning. The construction "religiously opposed evolution" comments on the quality of his devotion to
his opposition, not the reasons for the opposition, which is the meaning of the prompt sentence. (C) is wrong.
Split #4: Concision. Choices (A) & (B) & (E) are all grammatically correct, but whereas (B) & (E) are wordy and awkward and indirect, (A) is sleek and
elegant and powerful. (A) is the best answer.

Related Lessons
Dolphins can swim at high speeds and achieve high acceleration in the water. In 1936, Sir James Gray calculated the force dolphins should be able to
exert based on their physiology. He concluded that the propulsive force they were able to exert was not enough to explain how fast they
swim and accelerate. In the 2000s, experimenters used special computer-enhanced measurements of the water in which dolphins were swimming.
Through mathematical modeling, they were able to measure the force dolphins exert with their tails. As it turns out, dolphins exert considerably more
force with their tails than Sir James Gray or anybody else ever expected. Therefore, the force exerted by their tails easily explains how fast they
swim and accelerate.

In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

This first is a piece of evidence supporting the main conclusion; the second is the main conclusion. The first is a false conclusion based

on an incorrect premise; the second is the revised conclusion drawn from the corrected premise. The first is an opinion the author seeks
to refute; the second is the opinion the author supports ( IS SECOND AN OPINION ""...NO AND MOREOVER IT IS AUTHOR HIMSELF STATONG THAT AND

NOT SOMETHING SEE SUPPORTS . The first is a prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the

second is the main conclusion. The first is a generally held assumption; the second is a conclusion that violates that assumption.

Text Explanation
In this passage, the first bold statement is an incorrect conclusion. Sir James Grey knew at the time that it was incorrect: he knew that his current
understanding of the physiology of dolphins could not explain how fast they move. It was the best science could do, given the evidence available at the
time. The second bold statement is the correct conclusion, which resolves the paradox and explains everything in terms of our modern measurements.

(B) is the credited answer. The first is false, and it was based on what we now realize was an incorrect assumption. The second is the true statement
based on correct evidence.

(A) is wrong: Sir James Grey's conclusion is not a piece of evidence, and it does not support the conclusion.

(C) is wrong: neither one of these are "opinions." Rather, both of them are scientific deductions.

(D) is wrong: there is no reason to specific that something about the first one "if accurate." We know the first statement is false: in fact, Sir James Grey
knew it had to be false.

(E) is wrong; the first statement is not generally held and it is not an assumption.

A high percentage of injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) occurs in athletes. A sophisticated statistical analysis looked at the number of athletes
who suffered an ACL injury, and assigned numerical values to both the nature of the stress that produced the injury and to the resultant level of damage to
the ACL. Researchers expected that, controlling for level of injury-causing stress, all athletically inclined individuals would show similar tendency toward
ACL injury regardless of the specific sport. A surprising outcome is that, equalizing for injuring-causing stress, it appears that gymnasts have a much
higher tendency toward ACL injury than do members of the National Football League (NFL), but this is most likely because _______________

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

gymnasts are in general far more flexible than football players. high school and college football players who have a higher tendency

to ACL injury are far less likely to advance to the NFL most gymnasts, as those preparing for the Olympics, are amateur athletes, whereas

NFL players are professional athletes. forceful contact among football players is part of the game, but is exceedingly rare amongst gymnasts since

they do not come in contact with one another. gymnasts are often given credit for inventing new positions or moves, while football players far more
regularly follow the typical moves associated with their position.

Text Explanation
The credited answer is (B). If football player who have a higher tendency toward ACLinjury drop out of football before the professional level, the football
players who make it to the NFL will have lower tendencies to suffer ACL injuries. The previous year of playing the sport would provide a "weeding" effect,
separating out the folks predisposed to ACL injury. Other athletic activities, such as gymnastics, would not have a similar weeding effect. so this would
make the NFL stand out with a lower tendency toward ACL injuries.
It's undoubted true that "gymnasts are in general far more flexible than football players", but does greater flexibility lead to more or fewer ACL injuries?
The passage gives us no information on this point, so this is not an appropriate conclusion. Choice(A) is incorrect.
Who is more likely to have an ACL injury, an amateur athlete or a professional athlete? The passage gives us no information on this point, so this is not an
appropriate conclusion. Choice (C) is incorrect.
If football players have more "forceful contact" than do gymnasts, then we would expect more football players to have ACL injuries, but this is the opposite
of what the paragraph says. Choice (D) is incorrect.
Gymnast create new positions, but are these new positions or moves more likely to lead to ACL injury than do the standard moves of football players? The
passage gives us no information on this point, so this is not an appropriate conclusion. Choice (E) is incorrect.

Related Lesso

The rate of health complications of patients on intravenous (IV) therapy at a particular hospital was higher than usual. Government inspectors found that
the typical IV solutions used in this hospital had somewhat high concentrations of sodium and potassium, which were raising patients' blood pressure and
taxing their kidneys. The government inspectors mandated lowering the sodium and potassium in these IV preparations, and threatened with a possible
government fine. In compliance, the hospital lowered the sodium and potassium levels in the IV solutions to the correct levels. Nevertheless, patients on
IV therapy at that hospital continued to have a high rate of health complications.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why acting on the government inspectors' recommendations failed to achieve its goal?

The change in IV solution procedure meant a number of related legal documents had to be renegotiated and rewritten, at great cost. When

sodium and potassium levels in the blood fall below their baseline level, it can damage cells throughout the body by reverse osmosis. It is typical

for a patient's appetite to increase to healthy levels once they have completed a course of IV therapy. A high proportion of patients at this

hospital are older, and older patients are more vulnerable to infections that can accompany IVs. Because the findings were published in
the news, some patients have chosen to use another hospital in the region

ext Explanation
There was a problem with IVs at this hospital. The government thought they isolated the cause --- high concentrations of sodium & potassium --- and the
hospital took care of that. Nevertheless, the overall problem remains. This is a paradox. We need something else that would cause patients as this
particular hospital to have a higher than normal rate of health complications from IV therapy.

(D) is the credited answer. If this hospital has more old folks, and old folks are more likely to have health complications from IV therapy, this would
completely explain why this particular hospital has higher rates.

(A) is irrelevant: how many legal documents had to be processed in one way or another is not going to have any effect on how many patients have health
complications from IV therapy.

(B) is irrelevant. The hospital lowered the sodium and potassium to "correct levels," so concentrations below baseline level are not the issue here.

(C) is irrelevant. This statement concerns folks who have completed their course of IV therapy, whereas this paradox to be resolved concerns folks who
get complicationsduring their IV therapy.

(E) is ambiguous. Some patients, hearing this news chose to go elsewhere. What does this imply for the rate of health complications among patients
receiving IV therapy? That's unclear. Were the patients who still came to this hospital, on average, in better or worse health than the pool that typically
would have come? Were there any commonalities among the health conditions of the folks who chose not to come to this hospital? We don't know. It's
possible that, if we had more information, this statement could be relevant, but in the absence of clarification, this doesn't explain anything.

Related Lessons

In the next decade, a large percentage of municipalities throughout the country will experience power failures if they do not modernize
their electrical substations. The vast majority of substations in the country already handle currents between 60% and 80% of their maximum capacity,
and currents are expected to rise, perhaps by as much as a factor of 3 in the next decade, because of population increase and the increased demand from
both industry and electronics in individual homes.

Which of the following is an assumption of the above argument?

An electrical substation fails when the current it handles rises above its maximum capacity. A modernized electric substation

would be able to handle at least three times the amount of current as does a current substation. Ten years from now, the average household will

own a greater number of electronic devices than does the average household today. Many electrical substations in operation today are old, and

have several aged components that could break down, leading to power failures, even if current levels don't increase substantially. The cost of
modernizing the substations is small compared to the average profits of electrical power companies

ext Explanation
For an assumption, we can use the Negation Test. The credited answer is (A). Suppose(A) is false. Suppose an electrical substation is perfectly capable of
handling currents well above its "maximum" capacity (it's unclear what "maximum" would mean in this instance, but we'll overlook that). If electrical
substations can handle much more current, then even if current demands increase by a factor of three, that won't be a problem at all. Negating this
statement devastates the argument, so this statement must be an assumption.
The argument is about current substations and whether they will fail. Facts about what new modern substations can handle are outside of the scope of this
argument. Choice(B) is incorrect.
All we know is that the overall "demand from both industry and electronics in individual homes" will increase. Does this mean more demand from each
house, or simply more houses with the same level of demand? And even if each house has more demand, does that mean they have more electronic
devices, or simply a small number, each of which demands an intense amount of electrical power? There is too much we don't know, so choice (C) is
incorrect.
Choice (D) could strengthen the argument if it were true, but if we negate it, this doesn't destroy argument. It's possible that the current substations are
not that old, and would not break down at current levels, but still would fail at increased levels of demand. Since we can negate (D) and the argument
could still work, this means (D)is not an assumption. Choice (D) is incorrect.
Choice (E) brings in the irrelevant information about cost: how much it would or wouldn't cost to modernize the substations in operation now doesn't
affect how likely it is that they will fail. Choice (E) is incorrect.
Related Lessons

In order to combat Carvilles rampant homeless problem, Mayor Bloomfield recently proposed a ban on sleeping outdoors in the citys many parks. He
claims that such a measure will force the homeless to either leave Carville or to find means other than sleeping in public parks.

Which of the following, if true, suggests that Mayor Bloomfields plan will be successful? ITS ABOUT THE BAN WORKIN FOR MAYOR MLOOMFIELD AND
NOT THE REDUCTION

Until the ban, the citys many homeless shelters were at less than fifty percent occupancy. Many homeless tend to congregate

underneath Carvilles numerous overpasses. Adjacent cities have even tougher measures on the homeless sleeping outdoors. The percent of

Carvilles population that has been homeless has been slowly decreasing in the last five years. Mayor Jonesmith, Mayor Bloomfields predecessor,
had been far more tolerant towards the citys homeless population.

Text Explanation
The mayors plan is to make sure the homeless are gone from Carville, and specifically, gone from Carville's public parks. Whether they remain in Carville
is not at issue here. They could leave, but that's not the main goal of the mayor's plan.

(A) suggests that there is plenty of room at the citys homeless shelters for the homeless to go to. (A) is the answer.

(B) suggests that the homeless arent only found in the park. This fact does not relate to the mayors plan, though.

(C) might suggest that the mayors plan wont work. Remember, the mayor only wants the homeless to leave the park. They dont have to leave Carville.

(D) only states that there are fewer homeless people each year. That doesnt tell us whether the mayor's plan will be successful.

(E) is totally out of scope.

Related Lessons

COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AUTHOR WAS SAYING THUS MISTAKE HAPPENED
Researchers, investigating the link between daily coffee consumption and learning, claim that subjects who consumed one cup of coffee a day for one
week (the equivalent of 50 mg per day) exhibited improvements in declarative memory. Furthermore, the study revealed that such improvements were
longer-lasting than those witnessed in a control group served decaffeinated coffee (decaffeinated contains negligible amounts of caffeine). After a week of
learning a list of facts, the subjects who consumed one cup of coffee were able to recall these facts with significantly more accuracy.

While daily coffee consumption may aid in the process of forming a greater number of short-term memories, and increase the likelihood that these
memories will be stored in long-term memory, the study glosses over an important fact. Many exhibit sensitivities to caffeine, including headaches (both
migraine and non-migraine), sleeplessness, heightened anxiety and any number of factors that, when working either alone or in tandem, may actually
lead to a decrease in the observed link between caffeine and learning. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the study represents a random samplingand
thus any number of subjects can exhibit any number of reactions to caffeineif enough subjects continue to display signs of improvements in learning,
then this result would not be inconsistent with the studys findings.

Still, until the researchers either release more details of this study, or subsequent studies are conducted, the extent to which those with caffeine
sensitivity influenced the observed link between coffee consumption and memory will not be fully known.

Based on information in the passage, if a follow-up study had been conducted in which those with caffeine sensitivities were removed, such a study would
most likely

be so inconclusive as to require scientists to conduct follow-up studies continue to provide a nebulous link between the effects of caffeine on

learning be unhelpful in giving scientists a better sense of the extent in which those with caffeine sensitivities affected the original study

show an even more pronounced relationship between caffeine consumption and an improvement in declarative memory need to
determine if those without caffeine sensitivities have similar increases in memory retention after consuming coffee

Text Explanation
The passage mentions that even if the study had subjects who displayed caffeine sensitivities and a decrease in learning, the positive learning effects
from those without caffeine sensitivities would cancel out the decrease in learning from those with caffeine sensitivities. Therefore, if a follow-up study
were conducted, in which those with caffeine sensitivities were removed, an even more pronounced effect in caffeine consumption and learning would be
evident. This leads us to (D).
(A) is misleading. It almost sounds as thought it is referring to the original study. A follow-up study would be more conclusive, at least from the standpoint
of showing how pronounced the effect of caffeine on learning is in those without caffeine sensitivities.

(B) is the opposite. A follow-up study would hope to remove any nebulosity or uncertainty from the first study.

(C), like (A) and (B), (C) does the opposite of the follow-up study proposed in the question: it says it would obscure the relationship, when in actuality the
follow-up study would make the relationship between caffeine and learning clearer.

(D) The answer.

(E) is tempting because it mentions those without caffeine sensitivities. However, according to the passage that caffeine has a positive effect on learning
in those without caffeine sensitivities has been established. Its simply determining the extent of this positive relationship.

Related Lesso

Researchers, investigating the link between daily coffee consumption and learning, claim that subjects who consumed one cup of coffee a day for one
week (the equivalent of 50 mg per day) exhibited improvements in declarative memory. Furthermore, the study revealed that such improvements were
longer-lasting than those witnessed in a control group served decaffeinated coffee (decaffeinated contains negligible amounts of caffeine). After a week of
learning a list of facts, the subjects who consumed one cup of coffee were able to recall these facts with significantly more accuracy.

While daily coffee consumption may aid in the process of forming a greater number of short-term memories, and increase the likelihood that these
memories will be stored in long-term memory, the study glosses over an important fact. Many exhibit sensitivities to caffeine, including headaches (both
migraine and non-migraine), sleeplessness, heightened anxiety and any number of factors that, when working either alone or in tandem, may actually
lead to a decrease in the observed link between caffeine and learning. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the study represents a random samplingand
thus any number of subjects can exhibit any number of reactions to caffeineif enough subjects continue to display signs of improvements in
learning, then this result would not be inconsistent with the studys findings.

Still, until the researchers either release more details of this study, or subsequent studies are conducted, the extent to which those with caffeine
sensitivity influenced the observed link between coffee consumption and memory will not be fully known.

According to the passage, the observed results of the study are not inconsistent with the fact that any number of subjects could exhibit caffeine
sensitivities because

the findings from the study tend to be tentative and will only gain more credibility if scientists are able to replicate findings even subjects

who experience migraines after drinking coffee will exhibit improvements in memory any such subjects would have no longer participated in the

study, thereby skewing the results in favor of those without caffeine sensitivities the same effect in improvements in declarative memory would be

observed regardless of the number of subjects who displayed sensitivities to caffeine as long as a majority of subjects display improved
declarative memory, such improvements will likely negate the adverse effects exhibited by those with caffeine sensitivities

Text Explanation
The passage mentions that if enough subjects continued to show improvements it would negate any potential negative effects between learning and
caffeine in those with caffeine sensitivities. Therefore, the positive link between caffeine and learning, as observed in the study, is not inconsistent with
the fact that a few subjects did not exhibit any improvements in learning. The answer is therefore (E).

(A) seems to sum up one of the main ideas of the passage but does not directly answer the question.

(B) is not supported by the passage.

(C) is wrong because the passage says that those with caffeine sensitivities did take part in the study.

(D) goes against the main thrust of the passage, which is if those with caffeine sensitivities showed no positive effect, or indeed a negative effect, then
that would effect the results of the study.

(E) The answer.

Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to
escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to
separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of
smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more
extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater
they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely
to be aggregate assemblagesor even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left.

The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the
asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better
than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble
hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect
that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds
sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic
energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces.

The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause
an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a
bell-shaped distribution with a statistical tail of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because
any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids
obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters.
The evident conclusionthat asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble pilesagrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can
blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in
order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile.

According to the rubble-pile hypothesis, an advantage conferred on an asteroid held together by weak forces is that it is

unlikely to fall apart over a long period of time more amenable to computer modeling less vulnerable to the effects of powerful

impacts not likely to collide with another object more readily observed by astronomers

Text Explanation
According to the passage, a porous bodyIt will absorb and dissipate Therefore Answer (C).

(A) is wrong. Duration, in regards to an asteroid holding together, is not mentioned.

(B), (C), and (D) are not supported by the passage.

Related Lessons
Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to
escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to
separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of
smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more
extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater
they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely
to be aggregate assemblagesor even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left.

The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the
asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better
than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble
hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect
that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds
sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic
energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces.

The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause
an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a
bell-shaped distribution with a statistical tail of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because
any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids
obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters.
The evident conclusionthat asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble pilesagrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can
blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in
order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile.

How would the author of the passage most likely respond to the assertion of another scientist claiming that a crater greater than the radius of an asteroid
is a result of an impact?

Asteroids actually contain a significant amount of regolith despite the force of weak gravity. Because of a great degree of fragmentation such

an asteroid would have to have a solid bedrock. Such a crater would most probably result from a series of small impacts over a period of time.

Most asteroids are held together by a series of forces that are often unstable. This claim would constitute evidence that the asteroid is
not monolithic.

EVEN IN SUCH QUESTIONS .............FIND A SPECIFIC INFO INSIDE THE PASSAGE AND U WILL GET THE ANSWER NEAR THAT

Text Explanation
This is a difficult question, mainly because the right answer doesnt jump out at you. The passage says that an asteroid with a crater larger than its radius
is not a monolithic body. In other words, the asteroid is a bunch of rocks held together by the weak forces of the asteroid. So if a scientist comes along (as
the question has it) and tells the author of the passage that there is an asteroid with a crater greater than half of its body, the author of the passage would
say that this evidence, not of an impact, but that the body is not monolithic. Thus the best answer, though not the perfect answer, is (E).

(A) is tempting because it is supported by the first paragraph. But it is not directly related to the claim of the other scientist (which is about a large crater).

(B) is not supported because the passage specifically says that any large asteroid with a large crater is very likely to be an aggregation (or an
accumulation) or rocks (Such colossal impactsbedrock is left.). Therefore, the asteroid would not have a solid bedrock, but would be pervasively
fragmented.

(C) is not supported by the passage.

(D) is wrong because weak forces, while mentioned, arent described as unstable.

Related Lessons
Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to
escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to
separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of
smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more
extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater
they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely
to be aggregate assemblagesor even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left.

The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the
asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better
than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble
hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect
that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds
sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic
energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces.

The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause
an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a
bell-shaped distribution with a statistical tail of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because
any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids
obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters.
The evident conclusionthat asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble pilesagrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can
blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in
order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile.

Scientists originally believed that asteroids lacked regolith because

a sizeable enough impact would cause all accumulated surface material to become dislodged the gravitational forces of asteroids were

too weak to hold any aggregation of matter together computer models had shown that loose pieces of rock tend to come dislodged from even

the slightest impact regolith was absent from smaller planets lacking an atmosphere the velocity of asteroids was so great as to cause any
loose matter to easily float off into space

Text Explanation
Answer: (B)

According to the first paragraph, Originally, scientistsexpected to escape their weak gravity. This matches up best with (B).

(A), while it sounds sensible, doesnt directly answer the question. According to the passage, regolith was expected to float off into space because the
weak force because it was expected to escape <asteroids> weak gravity. We are not focused, in this question, on the entire asteroid coming apart.

(C) is wrong because the computer models do not refer to what scientists originally believed.

(D) and (E) are not supported by the passage.

In the 1860s, the German philologist Lazarus Geiger proposed that the subdivision of color always follows the same hierarchy. The simplest color lexicons
(such as the DugermDani language of New Guinea) distinguish only black/dark and white/light. The next color to be given a separate word by cultures is
always centered on the red part of the visible spectrum. Then, according to Geiger, societies will adopt a word corresponding to yellow, then green, then
blue. Lazaruss color hierarchy was forgotten until restated in almost the same form in 1969 by Brent Berlin, an anthropologist, and Paul Kay, a linguist,
when it was hailed as a major discovery in modern linguistics. It showed a universal regularity underlying the apparently arbitrary way language is used to
describe the world.

Berlin and Kays hypothesis has since fallen in and out of favor, and certainly there are exceptions to the scheme they proposed. But the fundamental
color hierarchy, at least in the early stages (black/white, red, yellow/green, blue) remains generally accepted. The problem is that no one could explain
why this ordering of color exists. Why, for example, does the blue of sky and sea, or the green of foliage, not occur as a word before the far less common
red?

There are several schools of thought about how colors get named. Nativists, who include Berlin and Kay argue that the way in which we attach words to
concepts is innately determined by how we perceive the world. In this view our perceptual apparatus has evolved to ensure that we make sensiblethat
is, usefulchoices of what to label with distinct words: we are hardwired for practical forms of language. Empiricists, in contrast, argue that we dont
need this innate programming, just the capacity to learn the conventional (but arbitrary) labels for things we can perceive.

In both cases, the categories of things to name are deemed obvious: language just labels them. But the conclusions of Loreto and colleagues fit with a
third possibility: the culturist view, which says that shared communication is needed to help organize category formation, so that categories and
language co-evolve in an interaction between biological predisposition and culture. In other words, the starting point for color terms is not some inevitably
distinct block of the spectrum, but neither do we just divide up the spectrum in some arbitrary fashion, because the human eye has different sensitivity to
different parts of the spectrum. Given this, we have to arrive at some consensus, not just on which label to use, but on what is being labeled.

The idea that the order in which humans name colors follows a fixed pattern is most consistent with which of the following?

The empiricists position The nativist school of thought The conclusions of Loreto and colleagues Those who disagree with

Berlin and Kays view The culturist view

Related Lessons
The nativist view holds that the way in which we attach words to concepts is innately determined Therefore the answer is (B).
(A) is wrong because empiricists believe that the labels for things are arbitrary.

(B) The answer.

(C) Loreto and his colleagues (culturists) believe that color labeling follows a fixed pattern to some extent. However, the nativist view believes the pattern
is fixed to a great extent than do the culturists. The question is asking for us to identify which school follows a "fixed pattern". Thus (C) is wrong.

(D) Berlin and Kay are nativists. Thus their opponents would believe that color labeling is not fixed.

(E) See (C).

Related Le
IN CONFUING AND DIFFICULT TEXT GO TO FINFD THE EXACT LINES AND PICK THE KEY WORD AND
KEY THOUGHT ...N TRY TO MATCH IT WITH THE OPTION IN THE PASSAGE

In the 1860s, the German philologist Lazarus Geiger proposed that the subdivision of color always follows the same hierarchy. The simplest color lexicons
(such as the DugermDani language of New Guinea) distinguish only black/dark and white/light. The next color to be given a separate word by cultures is
always centered on the red part of the visible spectrum. Then, according to Geiger, societies will adopt a word corresponding to yellow, then green, then
blue. Lazaruss color hierarchy was forgotten until restated in almost the same form in 1969 by Brent Berlin, an anthropologist, and Paul Kay, a linguist,
when it was hailed as a major discovery in modern linguistics. It showed a universal regularity underlying the apparently arbitrary way language is used to
describe the world.

Berlin and Kays hypothesis has since fallen in and out of favor, and certainly there are exceptions to the scheme they proposed. But the fundamental
color hierarchy, at least in the early stages (black/white, red, yellow/green, blue) remains generally accepted. The problem is that no one could explain
why this ordering of color exists. Why, for example, does the blue of sky and sea, or the green of foliage, not occur as a word before the far less common
red?

There are several schools of thought about how colors get named. Nativists, who include Berlin and Kay argue that the way in which we attach words to
concepts is innately determined by how we perceive the world. In this view our perceptual apparatus has evolved to ensure that we make sensiblethat
is, usefulchoices of what to label with distinct words: we are hardwired for practical forms of language. Empiricists, in contrast, argue that we dont
need this innate programming, just the capacity to learn the conventional (but arbitrary) labels for things we can perceive.

In both cases, the categories of things to name are deemed obvious: language just labels them. But the conclusions of Loreto and colleagues fit with a
third possibility: the culturist view, which says that shared communication is needed to help organize category formation, so that categories and
language co-evolve in an interaction between biological predisposition and culture. In other words, the starting point for color terms is not some inevitably
distinct block of the spectrum, but neither do we just divide up the spectrum in some arbitrary fashion, because the human eye has different sensitivity to
different parts of the spectrum. Given this, we have to arrive at some consensus, not just on which label to use, but on what is being labeled.

According to the culturist view, the way in which humans form categories and append labels to things can best be summed as

constrained yet random inventive yet rule-bound interactive and bounded arbitrary yet biologically determined innately
determined and unchanging

ext Explanation
Answer: (C)

The passage says, shared communication, pointing at interaction. Then there is a further interaction between this cultural interaction and biological
predisposition. To be biologically predisposed is to be bounded.

(A) is wrong because the cultural view does not endorse a random pattern. Therefore, we can also get rid of (D), since arbitrary is similar to random.

(E) is wrong because of the word unmalleable, which means unchanging.