why not conspiracy and rivalry?

Please see also the explanation above provided by the mod.

Basically the academic when they have some sort of challenge the only thing the might able to do is to see something suspicious where there is nothing hidden.

Difficult question in its wording but this is not the way ETS makes questions..

Regards

So, why it is here if it doesn't serve the ETS style ?
How can we benefit from it in other words?

Because you stretch your mental muscles and learn even new words.

In fact, the official material should be used at the beginning to assess your possible initial score, in the middle to bespoke your preparation and in the last stage before the exam.

In the middle stages, you should use a mix. Considering also that ETS has a lot of questions to train but for instance, ETS does not provide as many as official questions GMAC provides

Great.
I agree, sometimes I feel that I finished all the ETS and need more to practice.

Could someone please explain what this line means 'when locking rhetorical horns' and how it is used in different sentences.

Thanks and regards

As usual, the blank should be similar - snub and slight is best pair. The other don't fit: Misinterpretations and misperceptions; conspiracies and rivalries.

to get into an argument with someone or embroiled into an argument. Basically means going into a conflict about an issue or argument

"Pointed Barbs" is a good hint for the answer, snub and slight are closest in terms of finding something that means insult to fill out the passage correctly.

Someone can explain me why?

why ?' what did not you understand Sir ??

Why not misinterpretations and misperceptions? they both have the same point to me. Please someone explain it to me.

Posted from my mobile device

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION


This is a very tough question because of the way that the answer choices are arranged. An uncommon definition of "slight" is used and two words that could arguably both work on their own (conspiracies, rivalries) create meanings that are a little too different for comfort. Finally, to make things even more difficult, two matching words, [C] and [E], describe the context of the sentence but not the specific word that goes in the blank.

First off, in academic writing, a great insult can come from an understated phrase. In other words, it only takes a few, low-key words for an academic to insult someone. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising that academics are likely to see insults where none exist. [A] and [F] are similar to the word "insult" and are the two answers to this question.
[B] could work, but it doesn't have a matching word. Be careful with "conspiracy." By a stretch, "conspiracy" could work in the original sentence, but a "conspiracy" and a "rivalry" are two different things.
[C] and [E] are similar words but don't fit the blank-though they do fit the general context. Misperceptions and misinterpretations result because academics are prone to seeing insults/slights/snubs where none exist. It wouldn't make sense to say that misperceptions result because academics are prone to seeing misinterpretations where none exist. The misperception is that they're seeing insults where none exist.

What does this sentence even mean? To understand this sentence you'll need to know the definitions of words like "rhetorical," "deploying," and "barbs."
- "Academics, when locking rhetorical horns, can toss off" = Academics, when debating [a rhetorical fight], throw
- "the most pointed barbs" = insults
- "by deploying nothing more than an understated phrase" = by using an understated phrase
. "so it should come as no surprise that they are also prone to seeing slights where none exist" = so it's not surprising that they tend to see insults where there actually are none

Putting the simple version together, then, you have the following:

Academics, when debating, can throw insults by using an understated phrase, so it's not surprising that they tend to see insults where there are none.

Essentially, this sentence states that when academics argue with one another, they don't yell insults. Instead, they respond with subtle statements. The statements are so subtle that it's hard to tell that they're even arguing back. Because professors argue this way, they sometimes mistake any subtle statement as an insult even when there isn't an insult there.