support@Free-Braindumps.com
Register Login
Cisco
CompTIA
ISC
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
ITIL
Juniper
Microsoft
VMware
Avaya
SAP
Google
NVIDIA
Salesforce
Amazon
Palo Alto Networks
ISC2
Splunk
ServiceNow
All Vendors
  1. Home
  2. Exams
  3. Test Prep
  4. MCAT Test

Test Prep MCAT Test Exam Prep
Medical College Admission Test: Verbal Reasoning, Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Writing Sample (Page 3 )

Updated On: 7-Sep-2026
Page 3 of 164
PDF with 811 Questions

In the early nineteenth century a large number of communal experiments, both secular and religious, sprang up in the northeastern United States. Perhaps the most famous secular commune was Brook Farm, founded by transcendentalists George Ripley and William H. Channing to promote the pursuit of leisure and culture through the proper application of time and labor. Its members (among the more notable were Nathaniel Hawthorne and Margaret Fuller) pursued field labor by day, art and philosophy by night. For a time the system worked so well that two afternoons a week were set aside for leisure and Brook Farm began outcompeting local farmers at the produce market. But by nature the Farm's members were thinkers, not workers; despite their success they remained mainly interested in the theoretical and philosophical implications of the experiment. Thus, when a devastating fire brought the community considerable financial burdens in its fifth year, the members felt little compunction about closing shop and returning to their comfortable Boston homes.
One of the most notable religious utopias was the Oneida community. Its founder, John Humphrey Noyes, believed that Christ's second coming had already occurred and that everyone alive was favored by Divine grace, which Noyes saw as an imperative to live a better life. Perhaps surprisingly, the Oneidans embraced industry and commerce, achieving success in fruit packing, trap making, and silk thread winding. They owned everything communally, and this principle extended to each other. The Oneidans saw monogamy as a selfish act and asserted that the men and women of the community were united in one "complex" marriage; sex between any two consenting members was perfectly acceptable. The Oneidans maintained order solely through "criticism" ­ anyone acting out of line was made to stand before the other members and hear his or her faults recounted. Oneida remained viable for some thirty years, until the leadership devolved on Noyes' son, an agnostic. The old religious fervor died out, and the dream degenerated into a joint stock company.
Doubtless the most successful communalists were the Shakers, so called for the early propensity to tremble ecstatically during religious worship. Their guiding light, Mother Ann, espoused four key principles: Virgin Purity, Christian Communism, Confession, and Separation from the World. Though the Shakers were less adamant on the last point ­ maintaining social relations and some commerce with their neighbors ­ they insisted on the other three, and renounced both personal property and sex. Men and women lived in a single large "Unitary Dwelling" and were considered complete equals, but they occupied separate wings and could speak together only if a third person were present. Despite their religious strictness, Shakers were known as simple, sincere, intelligent people, healthy and long-lived, producers of lovely books and hymns, and of furniture still prized for its quality and durability. In their heyday, six thousand Shakers lived in fifty-eight separate "families" throughout the Northeast. Later their celibacy, combined with their strict discipline, led to a decline in numbers, but even today a small number of elderly Shakers in two communities in Maine and New Hampshire continue to keep the faith.
It can be inferred from the passage that the cohesion of a secular workers' cooperative, based on the principles of collective ownership and the sharing of profits, would probably be weakened by:

I). diminished contact with the outside world.
II). increasing agnosticism.
III). considerable economic losses.

  1. I only
  2. II only
  3. III only
  4. I and II only

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

This presents an inference question about cohesion in secular communes. Considering that the three communes discussed in the passage had varying degrees of contact with the outside world, and the author
never mentions the amount of outside contact as a factor contributing to either the success or the failure of these communes, we cannot infer that diminished contact with the outside world (I) would weaken a secular workers' co-op. Therefore, statement I will not be a part of the correct answer, eliminating choices (A) and (D).
Since religious faith is not one of the bases of cohesion in a secular cooperative, it is unlikely that diminishing religious faith ­ increasing agnosticism (statement II) ­ would weaken the cooperative's cohesion, eliminating choice (B). The only remaining choice is (C), III only. Given that Brook Farm, a secular co-op, was drastically weakened by financial burdens (described in paragraph 1), it is reasonable to infer that economic losses would weaken the secular workers' co-op described in this question stem. Choice (C), then, is correct.



In the early nineteenth century a large number of communal experiments, both secular and religious, sprang up in the northeastern United States. Perhaps the most famous secular commune was Brook Farm, founded by transcendentalists George Ripley and William H. Channing to promote the pursuit of leisure and culture through the proper application of time and labor. Its members (among the more notable were Nathaniel Hawthorne and Margaret Fuller) pursued field labor by day, art and philosophy by night. For a time the system worked so well that two afternoons a week were set aside for leisure and Brook Farm began outcompeting local farmers at the produce market. But by nature the Farm's members were thinkers, not workers; despite their success they remained mainly interested in the theoretical and philosophical implications of the experiment. Thus, when a devastating fire brought the community considerable financial burdens in its fifth year, the members felt little compunction about closing shop and returning to their comfortable Boston homes.
One of the most notable religious utopias was the Oneida community. Its founder, John Humphrey Noyes, believed that Christ's second coming had already occurred and that everyone alive was favored by Divine grace, which Noyes saw as an imperative to live a better life. Perhaps surprisingly, the Oneidans embraced industry and commerce, achieving success in fruit packing, trap making, and silk thread winding. They owned everything communally, and this principle extended to each other. The Oneidans saw monogamy as a selfish act and asserted that the men and women of the community were united in one "complex" marriage; sex between any two consenting members was perfectly acceptable. The Oneidans maintained order solely through "criticism" ­ anyone acting out of line was made to stand before the other members and hear his or her faults recounted. Oneida remained viable for some thirty years, until the leadership devolved on Noyes' son, an agnostic. The old religious fervor died out, and the dream degenerated into a joint stock company.
Doubtless the most successful communalists were the Shakers, so called for the early propensity to tremble ecstatically during religious worship. Their guiding light, Mother Ann, espoused four key principles: Virgin Purity, Christian Communism, Confession, and Separation from the World. Though the Shakers were less adamant on the last point ­ maintaining social relations and some commerce with their neighbors ­ they insisted on the other three, and renounced both personal property and sex. Men and women lived in a single large "Unitary Dwelling" and were considered complete equals, but they occupied separate wings and could speak together only if a third person were present. Despite their religious strictness, Shakers were known as simple, sincere, intelligent people, healthy and long-lived, producers of lovely books and hymns, and of furniture still prized for its quality and durability. In their heyday, six thousand Shakers lived in fifty-eight separate "families" throughout the Northeast. Later their celibacy, combined with their strict discipline, led to a decline in numbers, but even today a small number of elderly Shakers in two communities in Maine and New Hampshire continue to keep the faith.
If the passage were to continue, the next topic the author would discuss would probably be:

  1. a comparison between nineteenth and twentieth century communal living experiments.
  2. a theory explaining why communal living might become popular again.
  3. an analysis of why early communes attracted intellectuals and artists.
  4. an investigation into why the three communes discussed were successful to varying degrees.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

This is another application question. This question asks about the next topic the author hypothetically might discuss. Again, to answer such an application question you need to consider the overall focus of the passage.
This passage is primarily descriptive. Because of this descriptive tone and focus on the varying degrees of success achieved by several 19th century experiments in communal living, it would be logical to think the next topic the author might pursue would be a consideration of why these three communes were successful to varying degrees, choice (D). It is unlikely that the author would next compare nineteenth and twentieth century communes, choice (A), since he had not previously made any mention of 20th century communes or suggestion of a comparison. A theory explaining why communal living might become popular again, choice (B), is an unlikely next topic because the passage is descriptive of the past, not predictive, in its focus. Although the first paragraph states that Brook Farm's members were artists and philosophers, this is just a detail of the passage; it is unlikely that the passage would later discuss the reasons why such communes attracted artists and intellectuals, so (C) is wrong.



The time has come to acknowledge the ascendancy of the humanistic psychology movement. The so-called "Third Stream" emerged at mid-century, asserting itself against the opposition of a pair of mighty, long- established currents, psychoanalysis and behaviorism. The hostility between these two older schools, as well as divisiveness within each of them, probably helped enable humanistic psychology to survive its early years. But the movement flourished because of its wealth of insights into the nature of this most inexact science.
Of the three major movements in the course of 20th century psychology, psychoanalysis is the oldest and most introspective. Conceived by Sigmund Freud as a means of treating mental and emotional disorders, psychoanalysis is based on the theory that people experience unresolved emotional conflicts in infancy and early childhood. Years later, although these experiences have largely disappeared from conscious awareness, they may continue to impair a person's ability to function in daily life. The patient experiences improvement when the psychoanalyst eventually unlocks these long-repressed memories of conflict and brings them to the patient's conscious awareness.
In the heyday of behaviorism, which occurred between the two world wars, the psychoanalytic movement was heavily criticized for being too concerned with inner subjective experience. Behavioral psychologists, dismissing ideas and feelings as unscientific, tried to deal only with observable and quantifiable facts. They perceived the human being merely as an organism which generated responses to stimuli produced by its body and the environment around it. Patients' neuroses no longer needed analysis; they could instead by modified by behavioral conditioning. Not even babies were safe: B.F. Skinner devised a container in which infants could be raised under "ideal" conditions ­ if a sound-proof box can be considered the ideal environment for child-rearing.
By mid-century, a number of psychologists had grown dissatisfied with both the deterministic Freudian perspective and the mechanistic approach of behaviorism. They questioned the idea that human personality becomes permanently fixed in the first few years of life. They wondered if the purpose of psychology was really to reduce people to laboratory specimens. Was it not instead possible that human beings are greater than the sum of their parts? That psychology should speak to their search for fulfillment and meaning in life?
It is questions like these that members of the Third Stream have sought to address. While the movement cannot be simplified down to a single theoretical position, it does spring from certain fundamental propositions. Humanistic psychologists believe that conscious experience, rather than outward behavior, is the proper subject of psychology. We recognize that each human being is unique, capable of change and personal growth. We see maturity as a process dependent on the establishment of a set of values and the development of self. And we believe that the more aspects of self which are satisfactorily developed, the more positive the individual's self-image.
Abraham Maslow, a pioneer of the Third Stream, articulated a hierarchy of basic human needs, starting with food, water and air, progressing upward through shelter and security, social acceptance and belonging, to love, esteem and self-expression. Progress toward the higher stages cannot occur until all of the more basic needs have been satisfied. Individuals atop the pyramid, having developed their potential to the highest possible extent, are said to be "self-actualized".
If this humanist theoretical perspective is aimed at empowering the individual, so too are the movement's efforts in the practical realm of clinical psychology. Believing that traditional psychotherapists tend to lead patients toward predetermined resolutions of their problems, Carl Rogers pressed for objective evaluations of both the process and outcome of psychotherapeutic treatment. Not content to function simply as a reformer,

Rogers also pioneered the development of "client-centered" or nondirective therapy, which emphasizes the autonomy of the client (i.e., patient). In client-centered therapy, clients choose the subjects for discussion, and are encouraged to create their own solutions to their problems.
If the author of this passage met a Freudian psychoanalyst who felt that it was important for patients to consider themselves capable of fundamental change, he would most likely conclude that the psychoanalyst was:

  1. opposed to the Third Stream.
  2. concerned only with conscious experience.
  3. influenced by humanist theory.
  4. rejecting Maslow's hierarchy of human needs.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

This is an application question. You're given a hypothetical situation, and asked to evaluate it on the basis of information in the passage. The key to answering this question lies in paragraphs 4 and 5, where the author makes several fundamental distinctions among the perspectives discussed in the passage. The first two sentences of the fourth paragraph establish that some psychologists were dissatisfied by the "deterministic Freudian perspective", which holds that "human personality becomes permanently fixed in the first few years of life". If Freudians believe that human personality is permanently fixed during early childhood, then they probably do not consider adult patients capable of fundamental change. But the Freudian psychoanalyst presented in the question stem does consider patients capable of fundamental change. He or she shares the humanist belief, detailed in the third and fourth sentences of paragraph 5, that patients are engaged in developmental processes involving such change. So if the psychoanalyst shares this humanist belief, then it's likely that he or she must have been influenced by humanist theory. This makes choice (C) correct. None of the other choices makes sense. Choice (A) says the psychoanalyst is opposed to the Third Stream. But the Third Stream is another name for humanistic psychology, and it's the humanists who believe that patients are capable of fundamental change. So, choice (A) is incorrect. Choice (B) references a statement in the third sentence of paragraph 5, that humanistic psychologists believe conscious experience to be the proper subject of psychology. But this belief does not necessarily lead to the idea that patients are capable of change. That is, the Freudian psychoanalyst may have been influenced by one fundamental proposition of humanistic psychology ­ that people can change ­ without believing its other fundamental propositions. The more general statement in choice (C) is, however, a better answer.
Choice (D) is irrelevant. Whether or not the psychoanalyst rejects Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, he or she still believes people are capable of change. And Maslow's hierarchy has no bearing on the belief that people are capable of change.



The time has come to acknowledge the ascendancy of the humanistic psychology movement. The so-called "Third Stream" emerged at mid-century, asserting itself against the opposition of a pair of mighty, long- established currents, psychoanalysis and behaviorism. The hostility between these two older schools, as well as divisiveness within each of them, probably helped enable humanistic psychology to survive its early years. But the movement flourished because of its wealth of insights into the nature of this most inexact science.
Of the three major movements in the course of 20th century psychology, psychoanalysis is the oldest and most introspective. Conceived by Sigmund Freud as a means of treating mental and emotional disorders, psychoanalysis is based on the theory that people experience unresolved emotional conflicts in infancy and early childhood. Years later, although these experiences have largely disappeared from conscious awareness, they may continue to impair a person's ability to function in daily life. The patient experiences improvement when the psychoanalyst eventually unlocks these long-repressed memories of conflict and brings them to the patient's conscious awareness.
In the heyday of behaviorism, which occurred between the two world wars, the psychoanalytic movement was heavily criticized for being too concerned with inner subjective experience. Behavioral psychologists, dismissing ideas and feelings as unscientific, tried to deal only with observable and quantifiable facts. They perceived the human being merely as an organism which generated responses to stimuli produced by its body and the environment around it. Patients' neuroses no longer needed analysis; they could instead by modified by behavioral conditioning. Not even babies were safe: B.F. Skinner devised a container in which infants could be raised under "ideal" conditions ­ if a sound-proof box can be considered the ideal environment for child-rearing.
By mid-century, a number of psychologists had grown dissatisfied with both the deterministic Freudian perspective and the mechanistic approach of behaviorism. They questioned the idea that human personality becomes permanently fixed in the first few years of life. They wondered if the purpose of psychology was really to reduce people to laboratory specimens. Was it not instead possible that human beings are greater than the sum of their parts? That psychology should speak to their search for fulfillment and meaning in life?
It is questions like these that members of the Third Stream have sought to address. While the movement cannot be simplified down to a single theoretical position, it does spring from certain fundamental propositions. Humanistic psychologists believe that conscious experience, rather than outward behavior, is the proper subject of psychology. We recognize that each human being is unique, capable of change and personal growth. We see maturity as a process dependent on the establishment of a set of values and the development of self. And we believe that the more aspects of self which are satisfactorily developed, the more positive the individual's self-image.
Abraham Maslow, a pioneer of the Third Stream, articulated a hierarchy of basic human needs, starting with food, water and air, progressing upward through shelter and security, social acceptance and belonging, to love, esteem and self-expression. Progress toward the higher stages cannot occur until all of the more basic needs have been satisfied. Individuals atop the pyramid, having developed their potential to the highest possible extent, are said to be "self-actualized".
If this humanist theoretical perspective is aimed at empowering the individual, so too are the movement's efforts in the practical realm of clinical psychology. Believing that traditional psychotherapists tend to lead patients toward predetermined resolutions of their problems, Carl Rogers pressed for objective evaluations of both the process and outcome of psychotherapeutic treatment. Not content to function simply as a reformer, Rogers also pioneered the development of "client-centered" or nondirective therapy, which emphasizes the autonomy of the client (i.e., patient). In client-centered therapy, clients choose the subjects for discussion, and are encouraged to create their own solutions to their problems.
The author states that "not even babies were safe" (line 35) most probably in order to:

  1. emphasize that the use of even very young subjects is considered valid among most psychologists.
  2. indicate the pervasive influence of behaviorists on the field of psychology.
  3. show that behaviorists were anxious to apply their theories to a wide range of subjects.
  4. warn of the dangers of psychoanalysis for children.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

This asks why the author says that "not even babies were safe." The line reference in the question stem leads you to the last sentence of the third paragraph. You must read that sentence and a few of the neighboring sentences, to understand the context of the statement. Babies were not safe from the behaviorists. In the third sentence of paragraph 3, the author says that behaviorists saw humans merely as organisms producing responses to stimulI). The author goes on to say that, for behaviorists, the technique of stimulus-response or behavioral conditioning could be used to condition and cure neurotic patients, thereby avoiding the lengthy process of analysis. "Not even babies were safe," says the author and goes on to describe Skinner's attempt to condition babies. In other words, behaviorists believed that the benefits of their conditioning process were so universal that they tried to test it on, or impose it upon, everyone, even babies. So choice (C) is correct here:
the author uses the quoted phrase to assert that behaviorists were eager to try out their conditioning theories on a wide variety of subjects. Choice (A) is wrong because it generalizes about what "most psychologists" consider
valid. The author is talking specifically about behaviorists, not psychologists in general. There's no way of knowing whether "most psychologists" believe that using very young subjects is scientifically valid. Choice (B) is similarly misdirected. During its heyday, behaviorism probably did have a pervasive influence on the field of psychology. But this has nothing to do with the author's statement, which has more to do with the effect of behaviorism on babies than on the field of psychology.
Like choice (A), choice (D) is an incorrect and very broad generalization. Choice (D) suggests that the author is warning against the dangers of psychoanalysis for children. It is true that the author suggests he feels babies are endangered by the reasoning behind behaviorism. But, the author's statement really is about behaviorism in particular, not psychoanalysis in general.



The time has come to acknowledge the ascendancy of the humanistic psychology movement. The so-called "Third Stream" emerged at mid-century, asserting itself against the opposition of a pair of mighty, long- established currents, psychoanalysis and behaviorism. The hostility between these two older schools, as well as divisiveness within each of them, probably helped enable humanistic psychology to survive its early years. But the movement flourished because of its wealth of insights into the nature of this most inexact science.
Of the three major movements in the course of 20th century psychology, psychoanalysis is the oldest and most introspective. Conceived by Sigmund Freud as a means of treating mental and emotional disorders, psychoanalysis is based on the theory that people experience unresolved emotional conflicts in infancy and early childhood. Years later, although these experiences have largely disappeared from conscious awareness, they may continue to impair a person's ability to function in daily life. The patient experiences improvement when the psychoanalyst eventually unlocks these long-repressed memories of conflict and brings them to the patient's conscious awareness.
In the heyday of behaviorism, which occurred between the two world wars, the psychoanalytic movement was heavily criticized for being too concerned with inner subjective experience. Behavioral psychologists, dismissing ideas and feelings as unscientific, tried to deal only with observable and quantifiable facts. They perceived the human being merely as an organism which generated responses to stimuli produced by its body and the environment around it. Patients' neuroses no longer needed analysis; they could instead by modified by behavioral conditioning. Not even babies were safe: B.F. Skinner devised a container in which infants could be raised under "ideal" conditions ­ if a sound-proof box can be considered the ideal environment for child-rearing.
By mid-century, a number of psychologists had grown dissatisfied with both the deterministic Freudian perspective and the mechanistic approach of behaviorism. They questioned the idea that human personality becomes permanently fixed in the first few years of life. They wondered if the purpose of psychology was really to reduce people to laboratory specimens. Was it not instead possible that human beings are greater than the sum of their parts? That psychology should speak to their search for fulfillment and meaning in life?
It is questions like these that members of the Third Stream have sought to address. While the movement cannot be simplified down to a single theoretical position, it does spring from certain fundamental propositions. Humanistic psychologists believe that conscious experience, rather than outward behavior, is the proper subject of psychology. We recognize that each human being is unique, capable of change and personal growth. We see maturity as a process dependent on the establishment of a set of values and the development of self. And we believe that the more aspects of self which are satisfactorily developed, the more positive the individual's self-image.
Abraham Maslow, a pioneer of the Third Stream, articulated a hierarchy of basic human needs, starting with food, water and air, progressing upward through shelter and security, social acceptance and belonging, to love, esteem and self-expression. Progress toward the higher stages cannot occur until all of the more basic needs have been satisfied. Individuals atop the pyramid, having developed their potential to the highest possible extent, are said to be "self-actualized".
If this humanist theoretical perspective is aimed at empowering the individual, so too are the movement's efforts in the practical realm of clinical psychology. Believing that traditional psychotherapists tend to lead patients toward predetermined resolutions of their problems, Carl Rogers pressed for objective evaluations of both the process and outcome of psychotherapeutic treatment. Not content to function simply as a reformer, Rogers also pioneered the development of "client-centered" or nondirective therapy, which emphasizes the autonomy of the client (i.e., patient). In client-centered therapy, clients choose the subjects for discussion, and are encouraged to create their own solutions to their problems.
The author most probably believes that, in its early days, the humanistic psychology movement:
I). benefited from dissension among psychologists.
II). acknowledged Maslow and Rogers as its only leaders.
III). was an offshoot of behaviorism.

  1. I only
  2. II only
  3. I and II only
  4. II and III only

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

This is in Roman Numeral format. It asks you to infer what the author believes about the early days of humanistic psychology. The movement's early days are referred to in the opening paragraph of the passage. In sentence 2 of paragraph 1, the author says that, at first, humanistic psychology had to struggle against the two older movements, psychoanalysis and behaviorism. In the next sentence, the author says that hostility between psychoanalysts and behaviorists, and divisiveness within their respective movements, probably helped humanistic psychology to survive those early years. This last point, concerning divisiveness between and within each of the two older schools, means that Roman numeral statement I is true, and will be part of the correct answer. So choices (B) and (D), which don't contain Roman Numeral I, are already eliminated. More importantly, there is no choice that says Roman numerals I and III, we know we don't even have to look at Roman numeral statement III). So what about Roman numeral statement II? In its early days, did the humanistic psychology movement recognize Maslow and Rogers as its only leaders? No, the author never hints that this is so. Maslow and Rogers are named as early pioneers of the movement, not as its first, or unchallenged and exclusive rulers. So Roman numeral statement II is false, and the correct answer must be choice (A), statement I only. Statement III says that early humanistic psychology was an offshoot of behaviorism. This is not true; from what the author says, it seems clear that humanism was a revolt against both of the older schools, psychoanalysis and behaviorism. If anything, humanism seems to have more in common with psychoanalysis than with behaviorism, since humanism and psychoanalysis are both concerned with conscious experience.
Regardless, statement III is incorrect, and choice (A), statement I only, is correct.



  PDF
Viewing page 3 of 164
Viewing questions 11 - 15 out of 811 questions


Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep MCAT Test exam prep with other Community members:

AI Tutor AI Tutor 👋 I’m here to help!