Originally posted on https://exampal.com/blog/gre/crush-gre- ... -question/



This blog contains 6 GRE verbal questions from different topics and showcases several different problem-solving strategies. Use this blog to see if you’re on the right track in your studies, and to learn what to do if you’re not.

Before we dive into the GRE practice questions, here is a brief reminder of what the PAL system, which you’ll see implemented in every one of the below questions, is all about.


At examPAL, we split solution methodologies into 3 broad categories – Precise approaches, which rely on straightforward application of vocabulary or straightforward inference from context; Logical approaches, which are based on abstract structure, tone, or meaning; and Alternative approaches, which use the answer choices to help point us in the right direction. In the below you’ll see several solutions suggested for each question, categorized as Precise, Alternative, or Logical. Focus not only on understanding how the solutions work, but also on understanding which of the given approaches works better for you.



Furthermore, as you continue your GRE verbal practice, you’ll encounter many more of these different types of solution methodologies. Keep an eye out for them!



The first type of question we’ll go over is a Sentence Equivalence question. In these you need to pick the two answer choices such that each answer creates a correct, meaningful sentence and such that both sentences have the same meaning (and tone).

——–

Sentence Equivalence question 1:

Despite Robert Lowell’s ____ violence of any kind, the poet was known for supporting the Black Panther Party, which had a revolutionary, anti-imperialist, and militant approach.

1. partiality for
2. acceptance of
3. renouncement of
4. avoidance of
5. predilection for
6. repudiation of
——–

Ideally, we’ll have a good enough understanding of what the sentence is trying to say to ‘fill in the blank’ on our own. That is, we’ll be able to use the overall meaning of the sentence to logically infer which words will be correct without even looking at the answer choices. This is a Logical approach.


In this question we have a very clear sentence structure:

“Despite Robert’s ____ violence,the poet supported… which had a …. militant approach.”


The word ‘Despite’ makes it clear that the blank, which describes Robert’s relation to violence, is opposite to the word ‘militant’ which describes his actions. In other words, Robert had a negative attitude towards violence so we’ll look for two words with negative connotations. (C), (D), and (F) are our only options, but while (C) and (F) are strongly negative (renouncement means to not do at all and repudiation means to refuse to accept, to denounce), (D) is only weakly negative and does not match.


Had we not understood all of the words, or had we not immediately noticed the contrast, we could instead have used the answers to help us figure out the meaning. This is an Alternative approach.


Trying out (A), we are told that even though Lowell was partial to, i.e. liked violence, he supported a revolutionary, militant group. Though this is grammatically fine, it doesn’t really make sense — where is the contrast implied by ‘Despite’? (B) acceptance of has the same problem as (A) so we can eliminate it. (C) renouncement of gives a different meaning — the contrast now makes sense so we’ll keep (C) for now and see if we can find a match for it. (D) avoidance is another valid answer, we’ll keep it and look for a matching pair. (E) predilection has the same problem as (A) and can be eliminated but (F) repudiation has the same meaning as (C). Having gone over all the answers, (C) and (F) are the only working pair and are our choice.


Next, we’ll look at a Text Completion Question. These are similar to Sentence Equivalence question in that we need to fill in the blank, but different in that we choose only one word for each blank and might have several blanks we need to fill.

——–

Text Completion question 1:

As the primaries progressed, the two candidates’ positions seemed to (i) _____ on many issues; in many cases, topics that once seemed like clear points of contention between the two became sites of (ii)____ debate.


Blank (i)

(A) polarize

(B) converge

(C) alternate



Blank (ii)

(D) heated

(E) nuanced

(F) confused

——–



Text Completion questions should first be solved Logically, by figuring out the sentence structure and using it to infer which of the options makes sense.



Breaking our sentence down, we have “… the positions… seemed to ___ …. topics that once seemed … points of contention… became sites of __ debate’. The structure implies that the second blank adds more detail onto what we know from the first, and that both are opposite to the ‘points of contention’ (= disagreement). So we’ll expect answers that show that there was more agreement between the two positions, which is exactly what what (B) converge (become close) and (E) nuanced (have small differences) imply.



As always, if we find the logic confusing, we can instead go over each word individually and see if it fits the context of its blank. Looking at the first blank, the candidates’ positions could have been getting farther apart (polarizing), closer (converging) or switching (alternating); we do not have sufficient information in the immediate surrounding of the blank to figure out which. Moving on in the sentence, if the topics in the past were points of fierce disagreement, but then something changed, then the disagreement must have become less harsh. A (E) nuanced debate fits perfectly. We can now go back to our first blank — the only option that makes sense is (B) converge.



Next, we’ll look at a Reading Comprehension passage. Reading Comprehension passages, as opposed to news articles or novels, need to be read actively, with an intent to understand. That is, while reading you should pause to ask yourself questions such as ‘why is the author presenting this evidence?’, ‘how does this claim strengthen/weaken what came before it?’, ‘how does this opinion relate to the opinion presented at the beginning of the passage?, and so on. Any important pieces of data or logical connections can be written down in a passage summary, and over time you’ll get more adept at creating these summaries more efficiently. Once you’ve understood the original passage, answering the subsequent questions is relatively straightforward.



——–

Reading Comprehension question 1:

In 2004, a seismic sea wave of cataclysmic proportions enveloped the shores of the Bay of Bengal, precipitating the death of an estimated 230,000 people, and causing deleterious and long-lasting effects to multiple countries, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, and the Maldives. During the time when the oceanic catastrophe, now presumed to be the deadliest tsunami in recorded history, took place, tsunami science was an arcane field with only a hundred or so experts, out of whom just four focused on tsunami forecasting. The disaster drew global political attention, fueling investments in tsunami research. The number of DART buoys (Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) worldwide increased from 7 to 60, notwithstanding their multi-million dollar cost. By the time the Tohoku tsunami struck Japan in 2011, prediction models developed in previous years were already saving lives. In Banda Aceh in 2004, 90 percent of the people in impacted areas died, whereas in 2011, the increased accuracy and warning time led this figure to drop to 10 percent.


Still, more data will result in further improvements, and as supercomputers advance, models should be able to run faster. Moreover, the warning system currently works well for tsunamis starting far from coastlines, yet less so for those starting closer to shore, and scientists still do not know how they move once they reach land.


The author would most likely agree that that the tsunami warning system should be


1. used as a cautionary tale of how the limited distribution of proper equipment and technological devices can have destructive effects on human lives.
2. a stimulus leading to other advancements in the underdeveloped field of tsunami science.
3. regarded with guarded optimism rather than complete satisfaction.
4. viewed as an underwhelming solution, considering the intellectual and financial resources that have been invested in creating it.
5. further developed to combat residual issues, such as struggling to detect tsunamis that start far from shore.
——–


We’ll start by summarizing our passage:

- There was a tsunami in 2004 which caused many deaths; the world was unprepared
- After the tsunami, many resources were invested in equipment and models
- In 2011 there was another tsunami which caused less damage because of previous preparation
- Current systems not perfect; cannot make predictions close to coastline or on shore


With our summary in hand, it is much easier to approach and answer the question. As we cannot know the ‘right answer to the question’ just from reading its stem, we have no choice but to go over every answer choice – the Alternative approach.


1. Though it is certainly possible to take this passage as a ‘cautionary tale’, that is not what we are asked — we are asked what the author thinks the system should be used for. Nowhere in the passage does the author talk about other types of disasters, acquisition of resources or technology, etc. We can eliminate (A).
2. The author does mention several improvements that would help boost the tsunami research field, but there is no reason to think they view it as ‘underdeveloped’. An answer choice which is ‘part right and part wrong’ is always incorrect. We can eliminate (B)
3. This seems to fit the bill – the overall tone of the passage is positive as the author traces the development and highlights a recent success. As the author lists several required improvements, we cannot be ‘completely satisfied’. Let’s see the other answer choices.
4. There is no reason to think that the author considers the solution ‘underwhelming’ and nowhere does the author question the money spent. (D) is eliminated
5. This is ‘almost correct’ – the system should be developed to detect tsunamis *close* to shore, and not *far* from shore. Watch out for these small changes! (E) is eliminated.


The only remaining answer choice is (C), which is the correct answer choice.

——–

Sentence Equivalence question 2:

The dissertation committee did not expect the student to give such a ______ presentation on her work on immigrant communities’ use of social media, given the extensive amount of time she spent ruminating on her findings.

1. deft
2. calamitous
3. maladroit
4. skillful
5. inept
6. evasive
——–



In this question, the direct contrast in the sentence between the “____ presentation” and the “extensive amount of time spent ruminating” mean that we can directly infer what word goes in the blank — a Precise approach. In particular, if the student spent a long time ruminating (=thinking) about her work, we would expect her to give a very good presentation. However, as she did what we did not expect, we can assume her presentation was not good in some way. The only relevant word pair is (C) maladroit and (E) inept, which both mean ‘poorly done’.



Note that, in this specific question, it would also have been relatively easy to use the Alternative approach — we could have gone straight to the answers, looked for the word pairs that made sense, and seen which of them fit the sentence. Specifically, (A) deft and (D) skillful are a pair as are (C) maladroit and (E) inept. These two pairs have opposite meanings so it is sufficient to recognize whether the blank should be ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ in order to figure out which of the two pairs is correct. As it is ‘negative’, (C) and (E) are our answers.


——–

Text Completion question 2:

It is hard to think of another athlete so well-known for (i) __________ in his interactions with the press. An upcoming long-form piece by a prominent sports journalist, however, marks a startling break with this longstanding pattern, as it is based on months of intimate accompaniment of the athlete in his daily life. Even so, some argue this recent show of transparency is (ii) _______ at best: for all the unfettered physical access granted, the athlete’s answers to interview questions remain as (iii) _______ as ever.


Blank (i)

(A) deep-seated aloofness

(B) persistent mercurialness

(C) distinctive approachability



Blank (ii)

(D) ephemeral

(E) skin-deep

(F) insidious



Blank (iii)

(G) exceedingly mendacious

(H) obstinately cryptic

(I) unabashedly contentious

——–



Though the given text is very long, it is also straightforward, meaning we can use the Precise method of directly inferring an answer based on the given data: though the athlete is well-known for __, a recent article with intimate access breaks this pattern. So the first blank is opposite to ‘intimate access’ and so must be (A) deep-seated aloofness. Next, critics disagree and say the actions are __, meaning that the second blank also contradicts the intimate access: it is (E) skin-deep. Lastly, the third blank shows why the access is only skin-deep, stating that the answers are (H) obstinately cryptic.



Note that we might initially think that the second blank could be (D) ephemeral, meaning temporary. But that would require that the remainder of the text told us how the athlete had returned to his ways after the article, which it does not do.



——–

Reading Comprehension question 2:

Born in Southampton County, Virginia in the late 18th century, Dred Scott was born into slavery. His owner, John Emerson, moved frequently due to his profession and took Scott with him to wherever he was stationed, which included free territories. After Emerson’s death in 1843, Scott attempted to purchase his freedom but was thwarted by Mrs. Emerson, prompting him to resort to legal recourse. Despite records verifying his prolonged stay in the free territory of Wisconsin, Scott endured a decade of additional suits, appeals, and court reversals, before his case was brought before the United States Supreme Court. There, it was decided that all people of African ancestry had no claim to citizenship, and thus did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. The ruling deepened sectional tensions between northern and southern U.S. states, further pushing the country towards the brink of civil war. Newspaper coverage of Scott’s legal battle raised awareness of slavery in non-slave states and bolstered popular opinion in favor of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War.



Which of the following best characterizes the function of the highlighted portion of the passage?

1. It outlines an explanation for a process that is then analyzed.
2. It implies a possible outcome of a process that underpins the message of the passage.
3. It describes a condition that served as the catalyst for developments described elsewhere in the passage.
4. It presents an extreme case from which generalizations are drawn.
5. It provides significant evidence that is used to challenge the main argument of the passage.
——–



Similarly to the above, we’ll start with a passage summary:

Scott was a slave but also lived in free territories
He tried to purchase his freedom but was stopped so he sued.
Passage suggests case was justified because he lived in the free territory Wisconsin
Case took a decade, then Supreme Court said he had no citizenship
This deepened tensions, pushed towards civil war, strengthened anti-slavery opinions

In this question, we’re asked about the specific function of a highlighted portion of the text. This is a question we should be able to answer directly based on the sentence’s role in the text, without having to go through the answers. This is a Logical approach.



Looking at our summary, we can see that the highlighted sentence is the historical evidence Scott used to justify his claim. Therefore the correct answer choice will likely be something about ‘evidence used to support…’. Going over our options, (C) is the only one that makes sense — it ‘describes a condition’ (=is evidence) that ‘served as a catalyst’ (=supported, caused) ‘developments described elsewhere’ (=the legal case). Note that none of (A), (B), (D) have anything to do with evidence or support and that the second part of (E) doesn’t make sense.



Like what you’ve seen in this blog? Our platform offers 1500+ GRE practice questions at all levels of difficulty and on all topics you need to know. Additionally, our interactive videos along with our personalized, AI-driven algorithms will both keep you engaged and make sure that the things you do are personalized for your specific needs. Check out the different packages we offer or start a free trial.