QUESTION: 93

Nearly a decade ago, researchers at Brandeis University conducted an interesting experiment with small robots. The robots were programmed to get as many individual points as possible by finding small metal pucks and taking them to a nest in a corner of the lab. Robots were rewarded with points whenever they found a puck. But their excessive self-interest led to poor performance as robots repeatedly interfered with one another and battled over pucks. Researchers then reprogrammed the robots to share information: Robots would announce when they found a puck and listen to what other robots had to say. The robots were able to gather twice as many pucks as they had before they were reprogrammed.

Which of the following conclusions can be drawn from the experiment described in this passage?

Robots can be taught human behaviors.
The robots were poorly programmed in the first experiment.
The researchers were shocked by the difference in results between the two experiments.
Sharing information can dramatically improve the productivity of a group.
Self-interest leads to unproductive behavior.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The huge difference in results after the robots were reprogrammed makes d the most logical conclusion: Sharing information can dramatically improve the productivity of a group. Choice a is incorrect for several reasons. First, self-interest and sharing aren’t exclusively human behaviors; animals are also driven by self- interest, and many animals also share (information, food, etc.). Second, the robots were programmed, not taught. The experiment doesn’t really show that the robots learned anything; they did what they were programmed to do, and as a result, they were more successful. Choice b is incorrect because the passage does not suggest that the robots were incorrectly programmed in the first experiment. Nothing indicates how the researchers felt about the results, so choice c is not a logical conclusion. Although the robots were far less productive when they were self-interested, choice e is not logical because they did indeed gather some pucks and because in many instances self-interest can result in highly productive behavior (e.g., self-preservation).

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 94

The late 1990s saw the comeback of many rock-n-roll bands that had enjoyed great fame in the 1960s and 1970s, but had fallen into relative obscurity in the 1980s and early 1990s. Bands such as Santana and Aero smith released new albums at the end of the millennium and embarked on worldwide tours to sold-out audiences.

Which of the following, if true, best explains the phenomenon described in this passage?

Not much good rock-n-roll was produced in the late 1990s.
These bands were able to blend elements of classic rock with the new sound of the late 1990s to appeal to a wide audience.
The late 1990s saw an increasing nostalgia for the peace-loving era of the 1960s and early 1970s.
The bands simply got better with age.
A new generation of listeners discovered classic rock.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The lack of good music (choice a) may help account for older bands making a comeback, but this is not the best explanation. More convincing is the notion that older bands were able to blend their old sounds with new sounds to appeal to a wide audience — people who enjoyed their older music and people who enjoy the sounds of contemporary music. This would help explain their renewed popularity, because they still have a core of older fans as well as a large contingent of newer fans (younger listeners who were not necessarily familiar with their older music). Choice c is incorrect because a nostalgia for the 1960s and 1970s would mean the bands’ older music would be in demand, not their new music. Choice d is incorrect because this does not account for their lapse into “relative obscurity.” Choice e is incorrect for the same reason as c — if a new generation of listeners discovered classic rock, then they would be more interested in the bands’ older work.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 95

Two small-business owners, Jensen and Ling, could not be more different. Jensen is easy going, easy to talk to, good at delegating responsibility, and quick to acknowledge the contributions of others. Ling, however, is often high strung, generally unfriendly, and unable to give up any authority; she is determined to be involved in every decision. This explains why Jensen’s business is successful while Ling’s business has failed.
The conclusion of this argument is based upon all of the following assumptions EXCEPT

the personality of a business owner is the main factor in the success of the business.
a business leader with Jensen’s type of personality is more effective than one with Ling’s personality.
Jensen and Ling were in direct competition with each other.
Jensen and Ling had similar educational backgrounds and a comparable level of business experience.
Jensen and Ling had comparable businesses operating under comparable circumstances.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

Jensen and Ling did not have to be in direct competition with each other; indeed, they did not even have to know the other business existed. Rather, this argument hinges on other important assumptions. Clearly, the most important assumption is a, that the business leader’s personality is the main factor in the business’s success or failure. The premises focus on the personality traits of Jensen and Ling and jump to the conclusion that their personalities made the difference in their business success. Choice b is incorrect for the same reason; it also forms a logical link between the premises and the conclusion. Choices d and e are incorrect because they state assumptions that are essential in making this an apples-to-oranges comparison. Whatever their personality differences, this comparison does not work if Jensen and Ling were not similarly equipped (with education and experience) and in comparable businesses operating under comparable circumstances

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 96

Although no conclusive scientific evidence proves that angels exist, many highly intelligent and respectable people believe they exist and have even claimed to have spoken with angels. It is therefore reasonable to assume that angels do exist, but we just don’t have the means to prove their existence.

All of the following, if true, are valid objections to this argument EXCEPT

even people who are usually honest lie on occasion.
well-respected people often have deep religious beliefs, so they are likely to believe in angels, even if evidence suggests angels do not exist.
respectable people often want to be seen as highly moral people, and contact with angels would make them seem “chosen.”
many people believe that angels are messengers of God, and a belief in angels therefore provides evidence of their belief in God.
people who claim to see angels provide very similar descriptions of the angels.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

This statement would actually support the argument that angels exist. All of the other choices, however, offer valid objections to the argument.

Reveal Solution Next Question

Free GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam Braindumps (page: 24)

QUESTION: 93

Explanation:

QUESTION: 94

Explanation:

QUESTION: 95

Explanation:

QUESTION: 96

Explanation: