GRE Verbal Reasoning Practice Questions with Answers

Solution:

(A) Incorrect. Although “sensational” may seem related to the topic of presidential campaigns, this trap choice is actually off-topic. The fact is, the only information provided in the first part of the sentence deals with the length of campaigns, not the content of them. Thus, we have no evidence that the campaigns are “sensational” — or completely dull, for that matter.

(B) Incorrect. Although “partisan” (biased) may seem related to the topic of presidential campaigns, this trap choice is actually off-topic. The fact is, the sentence does not give us any information about the nature of the campaigns other than their length. Thus, we have no evidence that the campaigns were particularly “partisan.”

Regardless, “partisan” has nothing to do with the fact that “some presidential campaigns begin nearly two years before an election.” So, this choice is unrelated to the given context.

(C) Incorrect. This answer choice is illogical in context. It does not make sense to say that presidential campaigns that “begin nearly two years before an election” are “nonexistent.” Clearly, the campaigns exist.

The key to avoiding this illogical answer is recognizing that “such __________ campaigns” refers to presidential campaigns that “begin nearly two years before an election.”

(D) Correct. This is the only answer choice that is logical in context. Given that the sentence discusses presidential campaigns that “begin nearly two years before an election,” it makes sense to refer to those campaigns as “protracted” (drawn out, prolonged).

In the United States, some presidential campaigns begin nearly two years before an election, while in the United Kingdom, such protracted campaigns are unheard of.

(E) Incorrect. Although “monotonous” (boring and repetitive) may seem appropriate to describe presidential campaigns that “begin nearly two years before an election,” the sentence does not actually give us any information about the nature of the campaigns other than their length. So, these long campaigns could be “monotonous,” or they could be incredibly exciting.

In other words, we can’t assume that because the campaigns are lengthy, they are “monotonous.”

Answer: D

Solution:

The information that will help us fill the blanks is that the mammals “summon powerful trunk muscles that propel them forward.” Given this information, choice (B), superior, looks to be the most logical choice for blank (i), which describes the “sprinting speeds” of the mammals.

“Onerous” (burdensome) has a negative connotation that is not appropriate to the context. After all, the sentence presents no evidence that having the “ability to summon powerful trunk muscles” is difficult or burdensome in any way. So, we can eliminate choice (A).

“Arrogant” (conceited, self-important) can have a similar meaning to “superior” in some contexts, but not in this one. In this context, “arrogant” is illogical because the blank relates to “sprinting speeds,” something that cannot possibly be “arrogant.”

So, we’ve determined that some four-legged mammals have “superior sprinting speeds” because of “their ability to summon powerful trunk muscles.” Given that context, choice (F), outpace (go faster than), is the only choice that makes sense for blank (ii). Notice that none of the other blank (ii) choices relate to the topic of speed.

“Beguile” (charm in a deceptive way) is off-topic, as there is nothing in the sentence indicating that animals are attempting to “beguile” humans by having the ability to run faster than them.

“Provoke” (intentionally anger or annoy) is similarly off-topic, as there is nothing in the sentence indicating that animals are attempting to “provoke” humans by having the ability to run faster than them. Notice that the sentence gives no information at all related to the animals’ goals or intentions or to humans’ reactions to the animals. The only information we’re given is about the animals’ physical abilities.

Answer: b, f

Solution:

Notice the structural keyword “and” connecting elements of a list in the sentence. That keyword indicates that those elements agree with one another. Specifically, information we’re given that “the professor was too lenient (permissive)” indicates that all of the items in the list should support the idea that the professor was “lenient.”

Thus, we can immediately eliminate “punctilious” (fussy and demanding) for blank (i), since “overly punctilious about deadlines is the opposite of “too lenient.”

Similarly, “overly organized about deadlines” indicates a level of attention to deadlines that is not in keeping with being “too lenient.”

“Overly accommodating about deadlines” is the only blank (i) choice that is in keeping with the idea of being “too lenient.” Thus, choice (C) is correct for blank (i).

For blank (ii), “cataloged” seems to pair with the blank (i) choice “organized,” which we already determined is incorrect. Certainly, “cataloged habitual absences” goes in the opposite direction of what a “lenient” professor would do. So, we can eliminate “cataloged” as the opposite of what we need.

“Scrutinized (closely examined) habitual absences” is no better than “cataloged,” clearly going in the opposite direction of what a “lenient” professor would do.

“Ignored habitual absences” is the only action that makes sense for a professor who is “too lenient.” Thus, choice (F) is correct for blank (ii).

For blank (iii), we need to be careful to take into account that the phrase “declined to” precedes the blank. So, whatever answer we choose is what the professor did not do. In other words, “declined to” negates the word in the blank.

With that in mind, “exonerate” (pardon, free from blame) is the opposite of what we need, since “declined to exonerate students” means that the professor did not pardon the students. A professor who is “too lenient” would pardon students.

We should notice then that “reprimand” (express disapproval of) is the opposite of “exonerate,” and thus makes sense in this context. “Declined to reprimand students” means that the professor did not express disapproval, a logical action for a professor who is “too lenient.”

“Declined to assist students” is less clearly related to the topic of leniency, though if anything, “declined to assist” seems to go in the opposite direction of what a “lenient” professor would do.

So, choice (H), reprimand, is correct for blank (ii).

Now, let’s check our work:

No one could deny that the professor was too lenient; he was overly accommodating about deadlines, ignored habitual absences, and declined to reprimand students whose research was less than rigorous.

All of our answers are in agreement with one other and with the fact that “the professor was too lenient.” Thus, the sentence conveys a logical meaning.

Answer: c, f, h

Solution:

Remember, we must select two answers that logically complete the sentence and produce two sentence versions with the same meaning. So, let’s go through the answer choices in order, pairing them with their synonyms (if present) as we go.

Choice (A), adaptable (flexible, adjustable), is the opposite of what would logically complete the sentence. After all, if the countries have “rigid (not flexible) stances,” then it does not make sense that the countries would be “adaptable” in negotiations.

So, we can eliminate choice (A) and its synonym, choice (E), malleable, which produces the same illogical sentence meaning.

Choice (B), inflexible, is an antonym (i.e., word meaning the opposite) of adaptable/malleable, the answer pair we just eliminated as the opposite of what we need. Thus, “inflexible” is logical in the given context.

Notice also that “inflexible” is a synonym of the word “rigid,” which appears in the sentence and is also an antonym of adaptable/malleable. In this context, a synonym of “rigid” makes sense to complete the sentence, because if the countries have “rigid stances,” as the sentence says, then the countries logically would be “inflexible” in negotiations.

Choice (D), immovable, creates essentially the same sentence meaning as “inflexible” in this context. Thus, we have found a logical synonym pair, “inflexible” and “immovable,” with which to produce two sentence versions that have basically the same meaning. However, let’s evaluate the remaining two answer choices just in case.

Although choice (C), dissatisfied, could be logical in context, the only choice remaining for “dissatisfied” to pair with is choice (F), optimistic, which in this context conveys essentially the opposite meaning of “dissatisfied.”

Since these two remaining choices do not create the same sentence meaning, or pair with any other answer to create the same meaning, they cannot possibly be correct. So, we can eliminate both (C) and (F).

Thus, choices (B) and (D), inflexible/immovable, are the only two answers that accomplish both of the required tasks in an SE question: logically completing the sentence and creating equivalent sentence meanings.

Answer: B, D

Solution:

The keyword “despite” signals a contrast between the sentence portion containing the blank and the known information that “today he is almost exclusively revered as a poet.”

However, we should notice that there is already a contrast present in the information given: the contrast between being a philosopher and being “almost exclusively revered as a poet.” Let’s keep this contrast between philosopher and poet in mind as we’re evaluating answer choices.

Choice (A), preeminent, pairs with choice (E), renowned, as both mean “famous” or “celebrated.” And although preeminent/renowned agree with the concept of being “revered” (respected and admired), they do still create a logical contrast in context, a contrast between being known as a philosopher and being known as a poet.

Choice (B), ignored, pairs with choice (D), overlooked. However, being “cited as one of the most ignored/overlooked British philosophers” does not contrast with being “almost exclusively revered as a poet.” Those two things could be perfectly in keeping with each other. Notice that this synonym pair would work only if the contrast were between being ignored as a poet and being revered as a poet. But since we are contrasting philosopher with poet, these answer choices don’t create a logical contrast. Eliminate (B) and (D).

The only choices left are (C) and (F), “obscure” (little known) and “mischaracterized” (not accurately described). Those two words do not produce equivalent sentence meanings, and thus cannot possibly be correct.

Thus, preeminent/renowned are the only pair to logically complete the sentence:

Despite the fact that Coleridge was once cited as one of the most preeminent/renowned British philosophers of the eighteenth century, today he is almost exclusively revered as a poet.

Answer: A, E

Solution:

There are a couple of points of contrast and agreement in the sentence. The keyword “and” signals that “she was the first female astronomer in the United States” agrees with “her discovery of a comet was renowned at the time.” Given the contrast keyword “though” at the start of the sentence, we can see that those two statements together should contrast with the final statement, which is the statement containing the blank.

Thus, choice (A), rarely, which pairs with choice (E), seldom, makes sense, since both of those words mean “not often” or “almost never.” After all, both being the first female astronomer and discovering a comet certainly contrast with being “rarely/seldom mentioned in history textbooks.” We would expect a person of such accomplishment to be frequently mentioned in textbooks.

With that in mind, “constantly/incessantly mentioned in history textbooks” is in keeping with being the first female astronomer and discovering a comet. So, this synonym pair is the opposite of what makes sense in context, since we’re looking for a contrast. Eliminate (B) and (C).

The remaining two choices, “never” and “intermittently” (at irregular intervals), do not create equivalent sentence meanings. So, they can’t possibly be correct.

Therefore, the only synonym pair that logically completes the sentence is rarely/seldom.

Answer: A, E

Solution:

The first two sentences of this passage, S1 and S2, introduce a situation in which it has been discovered that something that was “long thought” to be true is not correct.

Specifically, S1 mentions the belief “that all animal brains had evolved to have in common certain chemical messengers,” and S2 indicates that that belief was shown to be incorrect by the discovery that “ctenophores” have brains that can accomplish the same tasks other animal brains can accomplish even though ctenophores have no traces of the chemical messengers that other animals’ brains have.

Then, the third sentence, S3, poses a question about the discovery introduced by S2, “What is behind this similarity …?”

A question in a passage is a powerful clue about the main idea and primary purpose of the passage. So, this question is a clue that we can use to determine what this passage is primarily concerned with.

Finally, S4, answers the question by presenting the idea of “convergent evolution,” which scientists have proposed as an explanation for “this similarity” between the brains of ctenophores and the brains of other animals.

So, given that, after introducing a discovery, the passage asks what is behind that discovery and then presents a possible explanation for that discovery, we can see that the passage is primarily concerned with explaining that discovery.

(A) Incorrect. Notice that the only “long-held theory” mentioned in the passage is what was “long thought,” which is “that all animal brains had evolved to have certain chemical messengers in common.”

Does the passage offer evidence in support of that “long thought” idea? No. The “discoveries” mentioned involving ctenophores disprove what was “long thought” by showing that some organisms do not have those chemical messengers.

So, what this choice describes is the opposite of what the passage does.

(B) Incorrect. This choice matches the passage somewhat in that the explanation that “scientists have proposed” could be considered “a recent theory.”

However, we can eliminate this choice because the passage makes no mention of any “experiment to test” that explanation.

(C) Incorrect. This choice is clearly incorrect because the passage is not “criticizing” anything and does not mention any “methodology.”

(D) Incorrect. This choice is partly correct, because the passage does mention a “discovery,” the discovery involving ctenophores’ brains.

However, notice that the passage does not “cast doubt on” that discovery. Rather it asks what is behind that discovery and then presents a possible explanation for that discovery.

So, what this choice describes is almost the opposite of what the passage does.

(E) Correct. As we discussed in the introduction to this explanation, after presenting the discovery involving ctenophores that showed that something “long thought” to be true is actually incorrect, the passage asks what is behind that discovery and then presents a possible explanation for that discovery. So, the passage is primarily concerned with presenting an explanation for that discovery.

Meanwhile, since the discovery involving ctenophores showed that something “long thought” to be true is actually incorrect, that discovery can be considered “an unexpected finding.” Thus, we can see that, in presenting an explanation for that discovery, the passage does “present an explanation for an unexpected finding.”

So, this choice accurately describes what the passage is primarily concerned with.

Answer: E

Solution:

The focus of this question is on “an effect of the corn planted by the Iroquois.” So, to find the information we need, we’ll home in on the area of the passage that is about the corn planted by the Iroquois, which is toward the end of the first paragraph. We can locate this area of the passage by either recalling where the Iroquois were mentioned or by scanning for the keyword Iroquois, which is relatively easy to find because it’s capitalized.

Since the passage says numerous things about the planting technique that the Iroquois used, we have to be careful to choose a choice that answers the question asked, rather than a choice that’s based on information located near the keywords “Iroquois” and “corn” in the passage but doesn’t answer the question.

(A) Incorrect. This choice is tempting, because in the fourth sentence of the passage, S4, “fertilizing the soil” is located between two pieces of information on corn planted by the Iroquois.

S4 says, “The corn provided tall stalks for the beans to climb, the beans not only provided nitrogen, fertilizing the soil, but also stabilized the corn.” We can see that S4 starts by mentioning “corn,” moves to “beans … fertilizing,” and then mentions “corn” again. So, if we were to simply look for information located near to “corn” in the passage, we might perceive this choice to be the correct answer.

However, since the passage says that beans, not corn, fertilize the soil, this choice is incorrect.

(B) Correct. Since S4 says, “The corn provided tall stalks for the beans to climb,” this choice seems to follow from what the passage says.

Still, it may not be 100 percent clear that, by providing stalks for the beans to climb, corn “contributes to the growth of the beans.”

So, notice that S6 says, “For example, it was common for the Iroquois to synergistically plant corn, beans, and squash together ….” Because S6 begins with “for example,” the Iroquois’ planting technique is an “example” of something.

What is the Iroquois’ technique an example of? Looking above, at S2, we see that the Iroquois’ technique is an example of “intercropping,” of which S5 says, “intercropping, in which … they forged a synergy such that characteristics of each plant improved the growth and health of all plants intercropped.”

Notice that S2 says that, in intercropping, each plant “improved the growth … of all plants intercropped.” So, since the Iroquois’ planting technique is an example of intercropping, it follows that one of the plants, corn, “improved the growth” of another plant intercropped, the beans.

So, this choice combines information stated in the passage to correctly answer the question.

(C) Incorrect. This choice is based on information that is located in S4, close to information on corn, but this choice is incorrect because S4 says, “the broad leaves of the squash plants provided ground shade, which … reduced water loss.” So, it’s the leaves of the squash plants that cause “a decrease in water loss,” not the corn.

To avoid choosing an answer like this one, we have to be careful to select one that correctly answers the question asked, rather than a choice that’s based on information in the right location in the passage but doesn’t answer the question.

(D) Incorrect. This choice is based on information that is located in S4, close to information on corn, but this choice is incorrect because S4 says “the beans … stabilized the corn, preventing it (the corn) from being damaged during heavy winds.” So, it’s the beans that “prevent damage from high winds,” not the corn.

To avoid choosing an answer like this one, we have to be careful to select one that correctly answers the question asked, rather than an answer that’s based on information in the right location in the passage but doesn’t answer the question.

(E) Incorrect. This choice is based on information that is located in S4, close to information on corn, but this choice is incorrect because S4 says, “the broad leaves of the squash plants provided ground shade, which … prevented weed growth.” So, it’s the leaves of the squash plants that reduce “the growth of weeds,” not the corn.

To avoid selecting an answer like this one, we have to be careful to select one that correctly answers the question asked, rather than an answer that is based on information in the right location in the passage but doesn’t answer the question.

Answer: B

Solution:

Let’s break down the argument:

Background: Over the past year, brown bears that inhabit the nearby mountains have been coming into the Town of Silverton with greater regularity.

Premise: About a year ago, three farms in the town began producing honey, which brown bears find irresistible.

Conclusion: It must be that brown bears are coming into the town with greater regularity to consume the honey produced by these farms.

Our goal is to weaken the support for the conclusion that bears are coming into the town more regularly now because of the honey being produced there. Anything that casts some doubt on this conclusion will weaken the argument.

We need to keep in mind that we won’t disregard an answer choice simply because it presents new information different from anything the passage says. In other words, even if an answer choice presents information different from anything the passage says, if that answer choice weakens the argument, it will be correct.

(A) Correct. Many people just starting to learn about Critical Reasoning quickly eliminate this answer choice. They say, “This is an argument about honey. Blueberries have nothing to do with honey. Therefore, what this answer choice says is out of scope.”

Not so fast. The conclusion is that the reason why brown bears are coming into the town with greater regularity is that they are coming to consume the honey that farms have started to produce.

How could we cast doubt on this claim? Couldn’t we do so by finding another plausible reason why brown bears are coming into the town with greater regularity? Definitely, right?

Notice that, although this answer choice is about blueberries, something not mentioned in the passage, what this answer choice says absolutely weakens the argument, because it brings up an alternative possible reason why the brown bears are coming into the town with greater regularity.

In other words, the author claims that it is the honey. This answer choice casts doubt on that claim by bringing up the possibility that it might not be the honey at all; it might just be the blueberries!

(B) Incorrect. Although what this answer choice says is very plausible given what the passage says, the fact that people living in the town have grown increasingly nervous because of the increased presence of the brown bears does not weaken the argument.

In other words, even if what this answer choice says is true, it still makes sense to conclude that the reason why bears are coming into the town is that they are coming to consume honey.

(C) Incorrect. Notice that this answer choice is quite different from answer choice (A). Whereas choice (A) brings up new information, and that new information weakens the argument, this choice brings up new information, and that new information does NOT weaken the argument.

After all, even if, over the past year, no more mountain lions have been sighted in the town than were sighted during previous years, that fact does not cast doubt on the author’s claim about the brown bears and the honey. In fact, if anything, the fact that bears, which find honey irresistible, are coming into the town more, while mountain lions do not seem to be coming into the town more, tends to confirm that the presence of the honey is the reason for the change in the bears’ behavior.

So, yes, we will eliminate this answer choice. Notice, however, that we are not eliminating it because it brings in new information. We’re eliminating it because what it says does not weaken the argument.

(D) Incorrect. What this answer choice says is in line with the conclusion of the argument. The fact that the owners of farms in the town have reported seeing brown bears opening their beehives to eat honey fits perfectly with the conclusion that the reason why brown bears are coming into the town with greater regularity is that they are coming to consume the honey produced by the farms. Therefore, what this answer choice says certainly does not weaken the argument.

(E) Incorrect. What this answer choice says explains a premise in the argument.

Notice that the passage says that “brown bears find honey irresistible.” So, what this choice does is simply explain why brown bears find honey irresistible. They find it irresistible because it is high in both sugar and calories, two things that they require in order to remain at a healthy weight.

Answer: A

Solution:

Let’s first review what the consultants’ claim is:

Conclusion: As a result of implementing the program, the hospital’s total annual costs will decrease.

Notice that, while the passage provides some background information related to the consultants’ claim, it does not include any evidence that supports the claim. So, to strengthen the argument, we need an answer that is a premise that supports the consultants’ claim.

(A) Incorrect. We have to be careful not to misconstrue the fact stated by this choice, that the amount that the hospital spends annually on employee compensation has been decreasing, as somehow supporting the conclusion that the hospital’s total annual costs will decrease as a result of implementing the program.

Notice that the passage states as fact that implementing the program will require increasing the amount that the hospital spends on employee compensation, and what this choice says does not change that fact.

(B) Incorrect. The fact that the consultants were hired to reduce costs is not strong evidence that following a recommendation that they have made will actually result in a decrease in costs.

(C) Incorrect. This comparison does not affect the conclusion. One might take what this choice says as evidence that there is a lot of room for reduction of Centerville Hospital’s expenses and, thus, decide that this choice strengthens the conclusion that implementing the program will result in a reduction of those expenses.

However, that line of reasoning is a stretch, in multiple ways. For one thing, it could be that the reason Centerville Hospital’s expenses are the greatest is simply that it is the biggest hospital.

(D) Incorrect. Regardless of how much Centerville Hospital employees are paid, an increase in the amount that the hospital spends on employee compensation will result in an increase rather than a decrease in annual total costs.

(E) Correct. This choice is a premise that supports the consultants’ claim.

If patients harmed because of medical mistakes often use legal means to obtain significant monetary compensation from those considered responsible for the mistakes, then mistakes made at Centerville Hospital could be costly for the hospital. Thus, reducing the number of medical mistakes made at Centerville Hospital could result in a significant reduction in the hospital’s annual expenses.

Answer: E