Free GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam Braindumps (page: 10)

Page 10 of 190

Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?
Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.
Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. A hot spot, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin"?

The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?

  1. 24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.
  2. There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.
  3. The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.
  4. One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.
  5. Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Scientists are basing their claims on global warning on rising ocean temperatures. One can tell if temperatures have in fact risen only by measuring them correctly.



Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?
Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.
Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin"?

It can be inferred from the passage that

  1. We cannot be certain that strange weather effects are a result of the earth heating up and an ever- increasing ozone hole.
  2. The greenhouse effect is the most widely discussed topic in the scientifically informed circles.
  3. If the temperature of the oceans has ceased to rise at an ever-increasing rate, then the rate of global warming has increased.
  4. Strange weather effects have been shown to be due to the diachronic effects of hydrocarbon burning and not to increases in CFC.
  5. Strange weather effects are caused by the increase use of CFCs, CO2, and similar gasses.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The author is questioning the cause and effect relationship between the increasingly large ozone hole and global warming, as well as cause and effect relationship between global warming and strange weather effects



Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?
Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.
Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin"?

The author’s claim that, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years would be strengthened if the author

  1. Indicated the minimum number of thermometers necessary for a whole earth measurement.
  2. Described the factors that precipitated the start of a new ice age.
  3. Compare synchronic whole earth measurements with diachronic whole earth measurements.
  4. Proved that the mean number of years required to detect significant changes in weather patterns is greater than thirty.
  5. Specified the exact location and quantity of thermometers placed by scientists around the globe.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

If one knows that change can be detected only after much more than thirty years, then measurements taken over a thirty-year period is insignificant



An Australian group named Action Council on Smoking and Health (ACSH) has recently lobbied to make warnings on cigarette packets more graphic. The council proposed that striking visual photos of diseased organs should be put on at least 50% of outside packaging, in conjunction with health warnings outlining smoking hazards enumerated in a separate leaflet placed inside the cigarette packet. The ACSH claim that bland and ineffectual warnings like "Smoking is a health hazard" currently found on cigarette packets are not nearly sufficient.
Substituting those inadequate admonitions with explicit photos will provide a powerful visual stimulus to help smokers relinquish their habit. The current cautions on cigarette packets have little or no impact on smokers who have grown immune to the warnings that focus on abstract tobacco related risks and illnesses from which smokers can easily disassociate themselves. The proposed new tactics would concentrate on the perspective of the individual smoker through a demonstration of what is occurring in his body each time he reaches for a cigarette, rather than a generic cautionary word of advise.
The ACSH cited the results of recent studies conducted by psychologists at McKean University confirming that evidence related to one's own experience is more effective at influencing future behavior than a presentation of facts and figures. A further rationale for the addition of pictures to cigarette packages is the finding that smokers handle their packets 20-30 times a day, on average, thus, if graphic pictures on cigarette packets were introduced, smoker would have 20-30 chances to face the harsh reality of what damage they are doing to themselves each time they light up.
Even more essential than the pictures on the outside label, ACSH strongly advocate including warnings and helpful information in a leaflet inserted into the packet of cigarettes. Even an analgesic, ACSH adds, found in every bathroom cabinet has all possible side effects enumerated in the insert. How much more imperative is it then when the substance in question is tobacco, a dried weed that contains highly noxious nicotine that society still accepts even though it kills one of every two of its users.
Fundamentally, what is at stake here is consumer rights. Smokers should know what substances they are inhaling, and what damage they are inflicting to their bodies, though surprisingly, even today, many do not. For this reason alone, the recommendation for more graphic pictures and warnings on cigarette packets, which many seem excessive, is being seriously considered.

It can be inferred from the passage

  1. That cigarette manufacturers would comply with regulations ordering them to add graphic pictures of diseased organs to their outside packaging.
  2. That society will not continue to condone smoking if it is proven even more dangerous than was previously assumed.
  3. That smoking cigarettes cause’s damage to the internal organs of the body.
  4. That if the written warnings were less bland and ineffectual, smokers would not take more notice of them.
  5. That smoker’s look at their cigarette packages each time they take out a cigarette.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

We do not have information about A. B. and D. from the passage. E. is incorrect because the passage claims that smokers have an opportunity to look at their cigarette packages, not that they actually do.



Page 10 of 190



Post your Comments and Discuss GMAT GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY exam with other Community members:

Viktor commented on October 10, 2024
Respect to the owners and operators of this site for providing this free exam site.
CANADA
upvote

Deep commented on October 10, 2024
Good questions
INDIA
upvote

Goben commented on October 10, 2024
Passed in one shot.
GERMANY
upvote

Neo commented on October 10, 2024
Gets easier as you go along
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

Neo commented on October 10, 2024
Need more practice
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

Violet commented on October 10, 2024
Need more practice
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

Neo commented on October 10, 2024
Challenging
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

Kopano commented on October 10, 2024
Prep going well
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

Harika Mudumby commented on October 10, 2024
great content
Anonymous
upvote

Neo commented on October 10, 2024
Happy with the material
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

Emily commented on October 09, 2024
A bit challe
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

a commented on October 09, 2024
SIMPLE QUESTIONS
Anonymous
upvote

Emily commented on October 09, 2024
grt resource
SOUTH AFRICA
upvote

robin commented on October 09, 2024
Im' done with clear in my mind
Anonymous
upvote

EDC commented on October 09, 2024
Passed this exam with a freaking 95% today.
Anonymous
upvote

Divyesh Arya commented on October 09, 2024
Nice questions
UNITED STATES
upvote

Harry commented on October 09, 2024
This platform is the best out of the exam dumps sites. I love it.
UNITED STATES
upvote

Ursela commented on October 09, 2024
Invested in the full version of this exam dump PDF version and it paid off. Passed with 89%.
UNITED STATES
upvote

Rakesh commented on October 08, 2024
The best dump with best price, join this site for proof. 100% guarantee of passing with 90% score
UNITED STATES
upvote

Rakesh commented on October 08, 2024
good The best dump with best price, join this site for proof. 100% guarantee of passing with 90% score
UNITED STATES
upvote

Rakesh commented on October 08, 2024
Good The best dump with best price, join this site for proof. 100% guarantee of passing with 90% score
UNITED STATES
upvote

Rakesh commented on October 08, 2024
Good dumps to practice.
UNITED STATES
upvote

ric commented on October 08, 2024
is it still vaild?
KOREA REPUBLIC OF
upvote

Bboy commented on October 08, 2024
So far so good
FRANCE
upvote

Bboy commented on October 08, 2024
nice questions
FRANCE
upvote

Gaurav commented on October 08, 2024
Good data thank you
Anonymous
upvote

Mike commented on October 08, 2024
Not bad at all
CANADA
upvote

max commented on October 08, 2024
great exam dumps
ROMANIA
upvote

Its truly to pass the exam. commented on October 08, 2024
Its truly to pass the exam.
ROMANIA
upvote

Rajat commented on October 08, 2024
very helpful
INDIA
upvote

Neha commented on October 08, 2024
Brainstorming required
UNITED STATES
upvote

jnr Ndlezane commented on October 08, 2024
elite stuff
Anonymous
upvote

Neha commented on October 08, 2024
It would be great if we have rationale/ explanation to all question
UNITED STATES
upvote

Neha A commented on October 08, 2024
Good Selection of questions
UNITED STATES
upvote