2.

The purpose of the question in lines 6-8 is to

To understand John Rawls’s theory of justice,
one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against.
The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political
philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized
(5) maximizing the fulfillment of people’s preferences.
At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else
should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction
possible for the greatest number of people?-but the
theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing
(10) an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing
so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly,
a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution.
Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian
view, there is no reason “why the violation of the
(15) liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater
good shared by many.”

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the
aim of the good life, how can we know what justice
requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts
(20) that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good
life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what
the principles of justice should be. This is key to
Rawls’s theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure
is just.

(25) But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a
clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of
ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake
among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does
not know who will get which shares. The child is
(30) likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the
possibility of receiving the smallest share, an
arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.
By denying the child information that would bias the
result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
(35) Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the
veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a
situation, which he calls the original position, in which
people are self-interested but do not know their own
station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under
(40) the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by
self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which
they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result
will be a just arrangement.

Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan
(45) of life, want certain “primary goods.” These include
rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and
income and wealth. Without these primary goods,
people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they
may be. Hence, any individual in the original position
(50) will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum
amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is
an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary
goods are not natural properties of human beings. If
someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided,
(55) at the expense of others if necessary.

3.

The author’s primary purpose in the passage is to

To understand John Rawls’s theory of justice,
one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against.
The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political
philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized
(5) maximizing the fulfillment of people’s preferences.
At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else
should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction
possible for the greatest number of people?-but the
theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing
(10) an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing
so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly,
a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution.
Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian
view, there is no reason “why the violation of the
(15) liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater
good shared by many.”

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the
aim of the good life, how can we know what justice
requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts
(20) that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good
life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what
the principles of justice should be. This is key to
Rawls’s theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure
is just.

(25) But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a
clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of
ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake
among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does
not know who will get which shares. The child is
(30) likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the
possibility of receiving the smallest share, an
arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.
By denying the child information that would bias the
result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
(35) Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the
veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a
situation, which he calls the original position, in which
people are self-interested but do not know their own
station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under
(40) the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by
self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which
they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result
will be a just arrangement.

Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan
(45) of life, want certain “primary goods.” These include
rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and
income and wealth. Without these primary goods,
people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they
may be. Hence, any individual in the original position
(50) will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum
amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is
an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary
goods are not natural properties of human beings. If
someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided,
(55) at the expense of others if necessary.

4.

With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

To understand John Rawls’s theory of justice,
one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against.
The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political
philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized
(5) maximizing the fulfillment of people’s preferences.
At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else
should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction
possible for the greatest number of people?-but the
theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing
(10) an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing
so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly,
a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution.
Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian
view, there is no reason “why the violation of the
(15) liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater
good shared by many.”

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the
aim of the good life, how can we know what justice
requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts
(20) that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good
life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what
the principles of justice should be. This is key to
Rawls’s theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure
is just.

(25) But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a
clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of
ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake
among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does
not know who will get which shares. The child is
(30) likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the
possibility of receiving the smallest share, an
arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.
By denying the child information that would bias the
result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
(35) Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the
veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a
situation, which he calls the original position, in which
people are self-interested but do not know their own
station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under
(40) the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by
self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which
they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result
will be a just arrangement.

Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan
(45) of life, want certain “primary goods.” These include
rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and
income and wealth. Without these primary goods,
people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they
may be. Hence, any individual in the original position
(50) will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum
amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is
an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary
goods are not natural properties of human beings. If
someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided,
(55) at the expense of others if necessary.

5.

The author’s stance toward Rawls’s theory is most accurately described as one of

To understand John Rawls’s theory of justice,
one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against.
The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political
philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized
(5) maximizing the fulfillment of people’s preferences.
At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else
should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction
possible for the greatest number of people?-but the
theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing
(10) an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing
so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly,
a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution.
Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian
view, there is no reason “why the violation of the
(15) liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater
good shared by many.”

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the
aim of the good life, how can we know what justice
requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts
(20) that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good
life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what
the principles of justice should be. This is key to
Rawls’s theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure
is just.

(25) But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a
clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of
ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake
among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does
not know who will get which shares. The child is
(30) likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the
possibility of receiving the smallest share, an
arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.
By denying the child information that would bias the
result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
(35) Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the
veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a
situation, which he calls the original position, in which
people are self-interested but do not know their own
station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under
(40) the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by
self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which
they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result
will be a just arrangement.

Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan
(45) of life, want certain “primary goods.” These include
rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and
income and wealth. Without these primary goods,
people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they
may be. Hence, any individual in the original position
(50) will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum
amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is
an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary
goods are not natural properties of human beings. If
someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided,
(55) at the expense of others if necessary.

6.

Which one of the following would, if true, most call into question the claim in lines 49-51 of the passage?

To understand John Rawls’s theory of justice,
one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against.
The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political
philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized
(5) maximizing the fulfillment of people’s preferences.
At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else
should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction
possible for the greatest number of people?-but the
theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing
(10) an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing
so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly,
a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution.
Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian
view, there is no reason “why the violation of the
(15) liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater
good shared by many.”

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the
aim of the good life, how can we know what justice
requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts
(20) that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good
life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what
the principles of justice should be. This is key to
Rawls’s theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure
is just.

(25) But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a
clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of
ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake
among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does
not know who will get which shares. The child is
(30) likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the
possibility of receiving the smallest share, an
arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.
By denying the child information that would bias the
result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
(35) Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the
veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a
situation, which he calls the original position, in which
people are self-interested but do not know their own
station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under
(40) the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by
self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which
they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result
will be a just arrangement.

Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan
(45) of life, want certain “primary goods.” These include
rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and
income and wealth. Without these primary goods,
people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they
may be. Hence, any individual in the original position
(50) will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum
amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is
an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary
goods are not natural properties of human beings. If
someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided,
(55) at the expense of others if necessary.

7.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Roughly 40 percent of the African American
population of the Southern United States left the South
between 1915 and 1960, primarily for the industrial
cities of the North. While there was some African
(5) American migration to the North during the nineteenth
century, most accounts point to 1915 as the start of
what historians call the Great Migration. There were at
least three catalysts of the Great Migration. First,
World War I increased labor demand in the industrial
(10) North. Second, the war in Europe cut off immigration,
which led many Northern employers to send labor
agents to recruit African American labor in the South.
Finally, a boll weevil infestation ruined cotton crops
and reduced labor demand in much of the South in
(15) the 191 Os and 1920s.

In short, the Great Migration began in 1915
and not earlier, because it was only then that the
North- South income gap became large enough to start
such a large-scale migration. Less clear, however, is
(20) why migration continued, and even accelerated, in
subsequent decades, at the same time that North-South
income differences were narrowing.

We propose that once started, migration develops
momentum over time as current migration reduces the
(25) difficulty and cost of future migration. Economists
have typically assumed that people migrate if their
expected earnings in the destination exceed those of
the origin enough to outweigh the difficulties and
one-time costs of migration. Previous research
(30) suggests that the difficulties and costs arise from
several sources. First, the uncertainty that potential
migrants face concerning housing and labor-market
conditions in the destination presents a significant
hindrance. Second, there is the simple cost in terms of
(35) time and money of physically moving from the origin
to the destination. Third, new migrants must
familiarize themselves with local labor- and
housing-market institutions once they arrive; they
must find housing and work, and they must often
(40) adapt to a new culture or language.

Empirical studies show that during the Great
Migration, information was passed through letters that
were often read by dozens of people and through
conversation when migrants made trips back to their
(45) home communities. Thus early migrants provided
information about labor- and housing-market
conditions to friends and relatives who had not yet
made the trip. First-time African American migrants
often traveled with earlier migrants returning to the
(50) North after a visit to the South, which reduced
physical costs. Additionally, previous migrants
reduced new migrants’ cost of adapting to a new locale
and culture by providing them with temporary
housing, food, and even credit. Previous migrants
(55) also provided a cultural cushion for later migrants,
so that they did not have to struggle as hard with their
new surroundings.

8.

According to the passage, the Great Migration did not start earlier than 1915 because

Roughly 40 percent of the African American
population of the Southern United States left the South
between 1915 and 1960, primarily for the industrial
cities of the North. While there was some African
(5) American migration to the North during the nineteenth
century, most accounts point to 1915 as the start of
what historians call the Great Migration. There were at
least three catalysts of the Great Migration. First,
World War I increased labor demand in the industrial
(10) North. Second, the war in Europe cut off immigration,
which led many Northern employers to send labor
agents to recruit African American labor in the South.
Finally, a boll weevil infestation ruined cotton crops
and reduced labor demand in much of the South in
(15) the 191 Os and 1920s.

In short, the Great Migration began in 1915
and not earlier, because it was only then that the
North- South income gap became large enough to start
such a large-scale migration. Less clear, however, is
(20) why migration continued, and even accelerated, in
subsequent decades, at the same time that North-South
income differences were narrowing.

We propose that once started, migration develops
momentum over time as current migration reduces the
(25) difficulty and cost of future migration. Economists
have typically assumed that people migrate if their
expected earnings in the destination exceed those of
the origin enough to outweigh the difficulties and
one-time costs of migration. Previous research
(30) suggests that the difficulties and costs arise from
several sources. First, the uncertainty that potential
migrants face concerning housing and labor-market
conditions in the destination presents a significant
hindrance. Second, there is the simple cost in terms of
(35) time and money of physically moving from the origin
to the destination. Third, new migrants must
familiarize themselves with local labor- and
housing-market institutions once they arrive; they
must find housing and work, and they must often
(40) adapt to a new culture or language.

Empirical studies show that during the Great
Migration, information was passed through letters that
were often read by dozens of people and through
conversation when migrants made trips back to their
(45) home communities. Thus early migrants provided
information about labor- and housing-market
conditions to friends and relatives who had not yet
made the trip. First-time African American migrants
often traveled with earlier migrants returning to the
(50) North after a visit to the South, which reduced
physical costs. Additionally, previous migrants
reduced new migrants’ cost of adapting to a new locale
and culture by providing them with temporary
housing, food, and even credit. Previous migrants
(55) also provided a cultural cushion for later migrants,
so that they did not have to struggle as hard with their
new surroundings.

9.

The third and fourth paragraphs of the passage function primarily to

Roughly 40 percent of the African American
population of the Southern United States left the South
between 1915 and 1960, primarily for the industrial
cities of the North. While there was some African
(5) American migration to the North during the nineteenth
century, most accounts point to 1915 as the start of
what historians call the Great Migration. There were at
least three catalysts of the Great Migration. First,
World War I increased labor demand in the industrial
(10) North. Second, the war in Europe cut off immigration,
which led many Northern employers to send labor
agents to recruit African American labor in the South.
Finally, a boll weevil infestation ruined cotton crops
and reduced labor demand in much of the South in
(15) the 191 Os and 1920s.

In short, the Great Migration began in 1915
and not earlier, because it was only then that the
North- South income gap became large enough to start
such a large-scale migration. Less clear, however, is
(20) why migration continued, and even accelerated, in
subsequent decades, at the same time that North-South
income differences were narrowing.

We propose that once started, migration develops
momentum over time as current migration reduces the
(25) difficulty and cost of future migration. Economists
have typically assumed that people migrate if their
expected earnings in the destination exceed those of
the origin enough to outweigh the difficulties and
one-time costs of migration. Previous research
(30) suggests that the difficulties and costs arise from
several sources. First, the uncertainty that potential
migrants face concerning housing and labor-market
conditions in the destination presents a significant
hindrance. Second, there is the simple cost in terms of
(35) time and money of physically moving from the origin
to the destination. Third, new migrants must
familiarize themselves with local labor- and
housing-market institutions once they arrive; they
must find housing and work, and they must often
(40) adapt to a new culture or language.

Empirical studies show that during the Great
Migration, information was passed through letters that
were often read by dozens of people and through
conversation when migrants made trips back to their
(45) home communities. Thus early migrants provided
information about labor- and housing-market
conditions to friends and relatives who had not yet
made the trip. First-time African American migrants
often traveled with earlier migrants returning to the
(50) North after a visit to the South, which reduced
physical costs. Additionally, previous migrants
reduced new migrants’ cost of adapting to a new locale
and culture by providing them with temporary
housing, food, and even credit. Previous migrants
(55) also provided a cultural cushion for later migrants,
so that they did not have to struggle as hard with their
new surroundings.

10.

The authors of the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

Roughly 40 percent of the African American
population of the Southern United States left the South
between 1915 and 1960, primarily for the industrial
cities of the North. While there was some African
(5) American migration to the North during the nineteenth
century, most accounts point to 1915 as the start of
what historians call the Great Migration. There were at
least three catalysts of the Great Migration. First,
World War I increased labor demand in the industrial
(10) North. Second, the war in Europe cut off immigration,
which led many Northern employers to send labor
agents to recruit African American labor in the South.
Finally, a boll weevil infestation ruined cotton crops
and reduced labor demand in much of the South in
(15) the 191 Os and 1920s.

In short, the Great Migration began in 1915
and not earlier, because it was only then that the
North- South income gap became large enough to start
such a large-scale migration. Less clear, however, is
(20) why migration continued, and even accelerated, in
subsequent decades, at the same time that North-South
income differences were narrowing.

We propose that once started, migration develops
momentum over time as current migration reduces the
(25) difficulty and cost of future migration. Economists
have typically assumed that people migrate if their
expected earnings in the destination exceed those of
the origin enough to outweigh the difficulties and
one-time costs of migration. Previous research
(30) suggests that the difficulties and costs arise from
several sources. First, the uncertainty that potential
migrants face concerning housing and labor-market
conditions in the destination presents a significant
hindrance. Second, there is the simple cost in terms of
(35) time and money of physically moving from the origin
to the destination. Third, new migrants must
familiarize themselves with local labor- and
housing-market institutions once they arrive; they
must find housing and work, and they must often
(40) adapt to a new culture or language.

Empirical studies show that during the Great
Migration, information was passed through letters that
were often read by dozens of people and through
conversation when migrants made trips back to their
(45) home communities. Thus early migrants provided
information about labor- and housing-market
conditions to friends and relatives who had not yet
made the trip. First-time African American migrants
often traveled with earlier migrants returning to the
(50) North after a visit to the South, which reduced
physical costs. Additionally, previous migrants
reduced new migrants’ cost of adapting to a new locale
and culture by providing them with temporary
housing, food, and even credit. Previous migrants
(55) also provided a cultural cushion for later migrants,
so that they did not have to struggle as hard with their
new surroundings.

11.

The primary purpose of the last sentence of the second paragraph is to

Roughly 40 percent of the African American
population of the Southern United States left the South
between 1915 and 1960, primarily for the industrial
cities of the North. While there was some African
(5) American migration to the North during the nineteenth
century, most accounts point to 1915 as the start of
what historians call the Great Migration. There were at
least three catalysts of the Great Migration. First,
World War I increased labor demand in the industrial
(10) North. Second, the war in Europe cut off immigration,
which led many Northern employers to send labor
agents to recruit African American labor in the South.
Finally, a boll weevil infestation ruined cotton crops
and reduced labor demand in much of the South in
(15) the 191 Os and 1920s.

In short, the Great Migration began in 1915
and not earlier, because it was only then that the
North- South income gap became large enough to start
such a large-scale migration. Less clear, however, is
(20) why migration continued, and even accelerated, in
subsequent decades, at the same time that North-South
income differences were narrowing.

We propose that once started, migration develops
momentum over time as current migration reduces the
(25) difficulty and cost of future migration. Economists
have typically assumed that people migrate if their
expected earnings in the destination exceed those of
the origin enough to outweigh the difficulties and
one-time costs of migration. Previous research
(30) suggests that the difficulties and costs arise from
several sources. First, the uncertainty that potential
migrants face concerning housing and labor-market
conditions in the destination presents a significant
hindrance. Second, there is the simple cost in terms of
(35) time and money of physically moving from the origin
to the destination. Third, new migrants must
familiarize themselves with local labor- and
housing-market institutions once they arrive; they
must find housing and work, and they must often
(40) adapt to a new culture or language.

Empirical studies show that during the Great
Migration, information was passed through letters that
were often read by dozens of people and through
conversation when migrants made trips back to their
(45) home communities. Thus early migrants provided
information about labor- and housing-market
conditions to friends and relatives who had not yet
made the trip. First-time African American migrants
often traveled with earlier migrants returning to the
(50) North after a visit to the South, which reduced
physical costs. Additionally, previous migrants
reduced new migrants’ cost of adapting to a new locale
and culture by providing them with temporary
housing, food, and even credit. Previous migrants
(55) also provided a cultural cushion for later migrants,
so that they did not have to struggle as hard with their
new surroundings.

12.

The passage provides the most support for which one of the following statements?

Roughly 40 percent of the African American
population of the Southern United States left the South
between 1915 and 1960, primarily for the industrial
cities of the North. While there was some African
(5) American migration to the North during the nineteenth
century, most accounts point to 1915 as the start of
what historians call the Great Migration. There were at
least three catalysts of the Great Migration. First,
World War I increased labor demand in the industrial
(10) North. Second, the war in Europe cut off immigration,
which led many Northern employers to send labor
agents to recruit African American labor in the South.
Finally, a boll weevil infestation ruined cotton crops
and reduced labor demand in much of the South in
(15) the 191 Os and 1920s.

In short, the Great Migration began in 1915
and not earlier, because it was only then that the
North- South income gap became large enough to start
such a large-scale migration. Less clear, however, is
(20) why migration continued, and even accelerated, in
subsequent decades, at the same time that North-South
income differences were narrowing.

We propose that once started, migration develops
momentum over time as current migration reduces the
(25) difficulty and cost of future migration. Economists
have typically assumed that people migrate if their
expected earnings in the destination exceed those of
the origin enough to outweigh the difficulties and
one-time costs of migration. Previous research
(30) suggests that the difficulties and costs arise from
several sources. First, the uncertainty that potential
migrants face concerning housing and labor-market
conditions in the destination presents a significant
hindrance. Second, there is the simple cost in terms of
(35) time and money of physically moving from the origin
to the destination. Third, new migrants must
familiarize themselves with local labor- and
housing-market institutions once they arrive; they
must find housing and work, and they must often
(40) adapt to a new culture or language.

Empirical studies show that during the Great
Migration, information was passed through letters that
were often read by dozens of people and through
conversation when migrants made trips back to their
(45) home communities. Thus early migrants provided
information about labor- and housing-market
conditions to friends and relatives who had not yet
made the trip. First-time African American migrants
often traveled with earlier migrants returning to the
(50) North after a visit to the South, which reduced
physical costs. Additionally, previous migrants
reduced new migrants’ cost of adapting to a new locale
and culture by providing them with temporary
housing, food, and even credit. Previous migrants
(55) also provided a cultural cushion for later migrants,
so that they did not have to struggle as hard with their
new surroundings.

13.

Which one of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the authors’ analysis of the Great Migration?

Roughly 40 percent of the African American
population of the Southern United States left the South
between 1915 and 1960, primarily for the industrial
cities of the North. While there was some African
(5) American migration to the North during the nineteenth
century, most accounts point to 1915 as the start of
what historians call the Great Migration. There were at
least three catalysts of the Great Migration. First,
World War I increased labor demand in the industrial
(10) North. Second, the war in Europe cut off immigration,
which led many Northern employers to send labor
agents to recruit African American labor in the South.
Finally, a boll weevil infestation ruined cotton crops
and reduced labor demand in much of the South in
(15) the 191 Os and 1920s.

In short, the Great Migration began in 1915
and not earlier, because it was only then that the
North- South income gap became large enough to start
such a large-scale migration. Less clear, however, is
(20) why migration continued, and even accelerated, in
subsequent decades, at the same time that North-South
income differences were narrowing.

We propose that once started, migration develops
momentum over time as current migration reduces the
(25) difficulty and cost of future migration. Economists
have typically assumed that people migrate if their
expected earnings in the destination exceed those of
the origin enough to outweigh the difficulties and
one-time costs of migration. Previous research
(30) suggests that the difficulties and costs arise from
several sources. First, the uncertainty that potential
migrants face concerning housing and labor-market
conditions in the destination presents a significant
hindrance. Second, there is the simple cost in terms of
(35) time and money of physically moving from the origin
to the destination. Third, new migrants must
familiarize themselves with local labor- and
housing-market institutions once they arrive; they
must find housing and work, and they must often
(40) adapt to a new culture or language.

Empirical studies show that during the Great
Migration, information was passed through letters that
were often read by dozens of people and through
conversation when migrants made trips back to their
(45) home communities. Thus early migrants provided
information about labor- and housing-market
conditions to friends and relatives who had not yet
made the trip. First-time African American migrants
often traveled with earlier migrants returning to the
(50) North after a visit to the South, which reduced
physical costs. Additionally, previous migrants
reduced new migrants’ cost of adapting to a new locale
and culture by providing them with temporary
housing, food, and even credit. Previous migrants
(55) also provided a cultural cushion for later migrants,
so that they did not have to struggle as hard with their
new surroundings.

14.

Both passages are primarily concerned with answering which one of the following questions?

Passage A

Insider-trading law makes it a crime to make
stock transactions, or help others make stock
transactions, based on information you have ahead
(5) of the general public because of your special position
within a company.

However, trading based on information you have
that everyone else doesn’t-isn’t this part of the very
definition of a functioning stock market? The entire
(10) field of stock brokering is based on people gaining
knowledge that others don’t have and then using it to
profit themselves or their clients. If you analyze a
stock, decide that it is overvalued, and sell it, you are
taking advantage of knowledge that many others don’t
(15) have. That doesn’t make you a criminal; it means
you’ve done your homework.

Stock markets work best when all the relevant
information about a company is spread as widely as
possible, as quickly as possible. Stock prices represent
(20) a constantly shifting amalgamation of everyone’s
information about and evaluations of a company’s
value. It helps when those who have accurate
information about changing circumstances are
permitted to act so that stock prices reflect them.

(25) Someone selling a stock because they know
something will happen soon that will lower the stock’s
value helps spread the knowledge that the price ought
to be dropping. Such actions help ensure that stock
prices do reflect a more accurate assessment of all
(30) the relevant facts. That’s good for everyone in the
stock market.

When contemplating insider-trading law, it helps
to consider a far more widespread practice: “insider
nontrading”-stock sales or purchases that would have
(35) been made, but aren’t because of inside knowledge.
This is certainly happening every day, and rightfully
so. No one would think to lock someone up for it.

Passage B

One of the basic principles of the stock market
(40) is transparency. In a transparent market, information
that influences trading decisions is available to all
participants at the same time. Success in the market
can then be gained only by skill in analyzing the
information and making good investing decisions.
(45) In a transparent stock market, everyone has the same
chance of making a good investment, and success is
based on individual merit and skill.

In insider-trading situations, some people make
investment decisions based on information that other
(50) people don’t have. People who don’t have access to
the inside information can’t make similarly informed
investment decisions. That unfairly compromises the
market: people with inside information can make
informed trade decisions far before everyone else,
(55) making it difficult or impossible for other people to
earn money in the stock market.

This, in tum, causes a loss of investor confidence
and could ultimately destroy the market. People invest
in the stock market because they believe they can
(60) make money. The whole point of capital investments
is to make good investing decisions and make money
over time. If investors believe they can’t make money,
they won’t invest. Undermining investor confidence
would thus deny companies access to the funds they
(65) need to grow and be successful, and it could ultimately
lead to widespread financial repercussions.

15.

In their attitudes toward stock trades based on inside information, the author of passage A and the author of passage B, respectively, may be most accurately described as

Passage A

Insider-trading law makes it a crime to make
stock transactions, or help others make stock
transactions, based on information you have ahead
(5) of the general public because of your special position
within a company.

However, trading based on information you have
that everyone else doesn’t-isn’t this part of the very
definition of a functioning stock market? The entire
(10) field of stock brokering is based on people gaining
knowledge that others don’t have and then using it to
profit themselves or their clients. If you analyze a
stock, decide that it is overvalued, and sell it, you are
taking advantage of knowledge that many others don’t
(15) have. That doesn’t make you a criminal; it means
you’ve done your homework.

Stock markets work best when all the relevant
information about a company is spread as widely as
possible, as quickly as possible. Stock prices represent
(20) a constantly shifting amalgamation of everyone’s
information about and evaluations of a company’s
value. It helps when those who have accurate
information about changing circumstances are
permitted to act so that stock prices reflect them.

(25) Someone selling a stock because they know
something will happen soon that will lower the stock’s
value helps spread the knowledge that the price ought
to be dropping. Such actions help ensure that stock
prices do reflect a more accurate assessment of all
(30) the relevant facts. That’s good for everyone in the
stock market.

When contemplating insider-trading law, it helps
to consider a far more widespread practice: “insider
nontrading”-stock sales or purchases that would have
(35) been made, but aren’t because of inside knowledge.
This is certainly happening every day, and rightfully
so. No one would think to lock someone up for it.

Passage B

One of the basic principles of the stock market
(40) is transparency. In a transparent market, information
that influences trading decisions is available to all
participants at the same time. Success in the market
can then be gained only by skill in analyzing the
information and making good investing decisions.
(45) In a transparent stock market, everyone has the same
chance of making a good investment, and success is
based on individual merit and skill.

In insider-trading situations, some people make
investment decisions based on information that other
(50) people don’t have. People who don’t have access to
the inside information can’t make similarly informed
investment decisions. That unfairly compromises the
market: people with inside information can make
informed trade decisions far before everyone else,
(55) making it difficult or impossible for other people to
earn money in the stock market.

This, in tum, causes a loss of investor confidence
and could ultimately destroy the market. People invest
in the stock market because they believe they can
(60) make money. The whole point of capital investments
is to make good investing decisions and make money
over time. If investors believe they can’t make money,
they won’t invest. Undermining investor confidence
would thus deny companies access to the funds they
(65) need to grow and be successful, and it could ultimately
lead to widespread financial repercussions.

16.

The authors would be most likely to agree that

Passage A

Insider-trading law makes it a crime to make
stock transactions, or help others make stock
transactions, based on information you have ahead
(5) of the general public because of your special position
within a company.

However, trading based on information you have
that everyone else doesn’t-isn’t this part of the very
definition of a functioning stock market? The entire
(10) field of stock brokering is based on people gaining
knowledge that others don’t have and then using it to
profit themselves or their clients. If you analyze a
stock, decide that it is overvalued, and sell it, you are
taking advantage of knowledge that many others don’t
(15) have. That doesn’t make you a criminal; it means
you’ve done your homework.

Stock markets work best when all the relevant
information about a company is spread as widely as
possible, as quickly as possible. Stock prices represent
(20) a constantly shifting amalgamation of everyone’s
information about and evaluations of a company’s
value. It helps when those who have accurate
information about changing circumstances are
permitted to act so that stock prices reflect them.

(25) Someone selling a stock because they know
something will happen soon that will lower the stock’s
value helps spread the knowledge that the price ought
to be dropping. Such actions help ensure that stock
prices do reflect a more accurate assessment of all
(30) the relevant facts. That’s good for everyone in the
stock market.

When contemplating insider-trading law, it helps
to consider a far more widespread practice: “insider
nontrading”-stock sales or purchases that would have
(35) been made, but aren’t because of inside knowledge.
This is certainly happening every day, and rightfully
so. No one would think to lock someone up for it.

Passage B

One of the basic principles of the stock market
(40) is transparency. In a transparent market, information
that influences trading decisions is available to all
participants at the same time. Success in the market
can then be gained only by skill in analyzing the
information and making good investing decisions.
(45) In a transparent stock market, everyone has the same
chance of making a good investment, and success is
based on individual merit and skill.

In insider-trading situations, some people make
investment decisions based on information that other
(50) people don’t have. People who don’t have access to
the inside information can’t make similarly informed
investment decisions. That unfairly compromises the
market: people with inside information can make
informed trade decisions far before everyone else,
(55) making it difficult or impossible for other people to
earn money in the stock market.

This, in tum, causes a loss of investor confidence
and could ultimately destroy the market. People invest
in the stock market because they believe they can
(60) make money. The whole point of capital investments
is to make good investing decisions and make money
over time. If investors believe they can’t make money,
they won’t invest. Undermining investor confidence
would thus deny companies access to the funds they
(65) need to grow and be successful, and it could ultimately
lead to widespread financial repercussions.

17.

Passage A, unlike passage B, seeks to advance its argument by

Passage A

Insider-trading law makes it a crime to make
stock transactions, or help others make stock
transactions, based on information you have ahead
(5) of the general public because of your special position
within a company.

However, trading based on information you have
that everyone else doesn’t-isn’t this part of the very
definition of a functioning stock market? The entire
(10) field of stock brokering is based on people gaining
knowledge that others don’t have and then using it to
profit themselves or their clients. If you analyze a
stock, decide that it is overvalued, and sell it, you are
taking advantage of knowledge that many others don’t
(15) have. That doesn’t make you a criminal; it means
you’ve done your homework.

Stock markets work best when all the relevant
information about a company is spread as widely as
possible, as quickly as possible. Stock prices represent
(20) a constantly shifting amalgamation of everyone’s
information about and evaluations of a company’s
value. It helps when those who have accurate
information about changing circumstances are
permitted to act so that stock prices reflect them.

(25) Someone selling a stock because they know
something will happen soon that will lower the stock’s
value helps spread the knowledge that the price ought
to be dropping. Such actions help ensure that stock
prices do reflect a more accurate assessment of all
(30) the relevant facts. That’s good for everyone in the
stock market.

When contemplating insider-trading law, it helps
to consider a far more widespread practice: “insider
nontrading”-stock sales or purchases that would have
(35) been made, but aren’t because of inside knowledge.
This is certainly happening every day, and rightfully
so. No one would think to lock someone up for it.

Passage B

One of the basic principles of the stock market
(40) is transparency. In a transparent market, information
that influences trading decisions is available to all
participants at the same time. Success in the market
can then be gained only by skill in analyzing the
information and making good investing decisions.
(45) In a transparent stock market, everyone has the same
chance of making a good investment, and success is
based on individual merit and skill.

In insider-trading situations, some people make
investment decisions based on information that other
(50) people don’t have. People who don’t have access to
the inside information can’t make similarly informed
investment decisions. That unfairly compromises the
market: people with inside information can make
informed trade decisions far before everyone else,
(55) making it difficult or impossible for other people to
earn money in the stock market.

This, in tum, causes a loss of investor confidence
and could ultimately destroy the market. People invest
in the stock market because they believe they can
(60) make money. The whole point of capital investments
is to make good investing decisions and make money
over time. If investors believe they can’t make money,
they won’t invest. Undermining investor confidence
would thus deny companies access to the funds they
(65) need to grow and be successful, and it could ultimately
lead to widespread financial repercussions.

18.

The passages’ references to the analysis of information about stocks (lines 11- 14, lines 40-42) are related in which one of the following ways?

Passage A

Insider-trading law makes it a crime to make
stock transactions, or help others make stock
transactions, based on information you have ahead
(5) of the general public because of your special position
within a company.

However, trading based on information you have
that everyone else doesn’t-isn’t this part of the very
definition of a functioning stock market? The entire
(10) field of stock brokering is based on people gaining
knowledge that others don’t have and then using it to
profit themselves or their clients. If you analyze a
stock, decide that it is overvalued, and sell it, you are
taking advantage of knowledge that many others don’t
(15) have. That doesn’t make you a criminal; it means
you’ve done your homework.

Stock markets work best when all the relevant
information about a company is spread as widely as
possible, as quickly as possible. Stock prices represent
(20) a constantly shifting amalgamation of everyone’s
information about and evaluations of a company’s
value. It helps when those who have accurate
information about changing circumstances are
permitted to act so that stock prices reflect them.

(25) Someone selling a stock because they know
something will happen soon that will lower the stock’s
value helps spread the knowledge that the price ought
to be dropping. Such actions help ensure that stock
prices do reflect a more accurate assessment of all
(30) the relevant facts. That’s good for everyone in the
stock market.

When contemplating insider-trading law, it helps
to consider a far more widespread practice: “insider
nontrading”-stock sales or purchases that would have
(35) been made, but aren’t because of inside knowledge.
This is certainly happening every day, and rightfully
so. No one would think to lock someone up for it.

Passage B

One of the basic principles of the stock market
(40) is transparency. In a transparent market, information
that influences trading decisions is available to all
participants at the same time. Success in the market
can then be gained only by skill in analyzing the
information and making good investing decisions.
(45) In a transparent stock market, everyone has the same
chance of making a good investment, and success is
based on individual merit and skill.

In insider-trading situations, some people make
investment decisions based on information that other
(50) people don’t have. People who don’t have access to
the inside information can’t make similarly informed
investment decisions. That unfairly compromises the
market: people with inside information can make
informed trade decisions far before everyone else,
(55) making it difficult or impossible for other people to
earn money in the stock market.

This, in tum, causes a loss of investor confidence
and could ultimately destroy the market. People invest
in the stock market because they believe they can
(60) make money. The whole point of capital investments
is to make good investing decisions and make money
over time. If investors believe they can’t make money,
they won’t invest. Undermining investor confidence
would thus deny companies access to the funds they
(65) need to grow and be successful, and it could ultimately
lead to widespread financial repercussions.

19.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

Passage A

Insider-trading law makes it a crime to make
stock transactions, or help others make stock
transactions, based on information you have ahead
(5) of the general public because of your special position
within a company.

However, trading based on information you have
that everyone else doesn’t-isn’t this part of the very
definition of a functioning stock market? The entire
(10) field of stock brokering is based on people gaining
knowledge that others don’t have and then using it to
profit themselves or their clients. If you analyze a
stock, decide that it is overvalued, and sell it, you are
taking advantage of knowledge that many others don’t
(15) have. That doesn’t make you a criminal; it means
you’ve done your homework.

Stock markets work best when all the relevant
information about a company is spread as widely as
possible, as quickly as possible. Stock prices represent
(20) a constantly shifting amalgamation of everyone’s
information about and evaluations of a company’s
value. It helps when those who have accurate
information about changing circumstances are
permitted to act so that stock prices reflect them.

(25) Someone selling a stock because they know
something will happen soon that will lower the stock’s
value helps spread the knowledge that the price ought
to be dropping. Such actions help ensure that stock
prices do reflect a more accurate assessment of all
(30) the relevant facts. That’s good for everyone in the
stock market.

When contemplating insider-trading law, it helps
to consider a far more widespread practice: “insider
nontrading”-stock sales or purchases that would have
(35) been made, but aren’t because of inside knowledge.
This is certainly happening every day, and rightfully
so. No one would think to lock someone up for it.

Passage B

One of the basic principles of the stock market
(40) is transparency. In a transparent market, information
that influences trading decisions is available to all
participants at the same time. Success in the market
can then be gained only by skill in analyzing the
information and making good investing decisions.
(45) In a transparent stock market, everyone has the same
chance of making a good investment, and success is
based on individual merit and skill.

In insider-trading situations, some people make
investment decisions based on information that other
(50) people don’t have. People who don’t have access to
the inside information can’t make similarly informed
investment decisions. That unfairly compromises the
market: people with inside information can make
informed trade decisions far before everyone else,
(55) making it difficult or impossible for other people to
earn money in the stock market.

This, in tum, causes a loss of investor confidence
and could ultimately destroy the market. People invest
in the stock market because they believe they can
(60) make money. The whole point of capital investments
is to make good investing decisions and make money
over time. If investors believe they can’t make money,
they won’t invest. Undermining investor confidence
would thus deny companies access to the funds they
(65) need to grow and be successful, and it could ultimately
lead to widespread financial repercussions.

20.

According to the modular theory of mind, as described in the passage, mental activity

There are some basic conceptual problems
hovering about the widespread use of brain scans as
pictures of mental activity. As applied to medical
diagnosis (for example, in diagnosing a brain tumor),
(5) a brain scan is similar in principle to an X-ray: it is
a way of seeing inside the body. Its value is
straightforward and indubitable. However, the use of
neuroimaging in psychology is a fundamentally
different kind of enterprise. It is a research method the
(10) validity of which depends on a premise: that the mind
can be analyzed into separate and distinct modules,
or components, and further that these modules are
instantiated in localized brain regions. This premise
is known as the modular theory of mind.

(15) It may in fact be that neither mental activity,
nor the physical processes that constitute it, are
decomposable into independent modules. Psychologist
William Uttal contends that rather than distinct
entities, the various mental processes are likely to be
(20) properties of a more general mental activity that is
distributed throughout the brain. It cannot be said,
for instance, that the amygdala is the seat of emotion
and the prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, as the
popular press sometimes claims. For when I get angry,
(25) I generally do so for a reason. To cleanly separate
emotion from reason-giving makes a hash of
human experience.

But if this critique of the modular theory of mind
is valid, how can one account for the fact that brain
(30) scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that “light
up” in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case
of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
what you are seeing when you look at a brain scan is
actually the result of a subtraction. The fMRI is
(35) usually interpreted as a map of the rate of oxygen use
in different parts of the brain, which stands as a
measure of metabolic activity. But what it actually
depicts is the differential rate of oxygen use: one first
takes a baseline measurement in the control condition,
(40) then a second measurement while the subject is
performing some cognitive task. The baseline
measurement is then subtracted from the on-task
measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, is
that whatever remains after the subtraction represents
(45) the metabolic activity associated solely with the
cognitive task in question.

One immediately obvious (but usually
unremarked) problem is that this method obscures the
fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions.
(50) A false impression of neat functional localization is
given by differential brain scans that subtract out all
the distributed brain functions. This subtractive
method produces striking images of the brain at work.
But isn’t the modular theory of mind ultimately
(55) attractive in part because it is illustrated so well by
the products of the subtractive method?

21.

The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements regarding the subtractive method?

There are some basic conceptual problems
hovering about the widespread use of brain scans as
pictures of mental activity. As applied to medical
diagnosis (for example, in diagnosing a brain tumor),
(5) a brain scan is similar in principle to an X-ray: it is
a way of seeing inside the body. Its value is
straightforward and indubitable. However, the use of
neuroimaging in psychology is a fundamentally
different kind of enterprise. It is a research method the
(10) validity of which depends on a premise: that the mind
can be analyzed into separate and distinct modules,
or components, and further that these modules are
instantiated in localized brain regions. This premise
is known as the modular theory of mind.

(15) It may in fact be that neither mental activity,
nor the physical processes that constitute it, are
decomposable into independent modules. Psychologist
William Uttal contends that rather than distinct
entities, the various mental processes are likely to be
(20) properties of a more general mental activity that is
distributed throughout the brain. It cannot be said,
for instance, that the amygdala is the seat of emotion
and the prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, as the
popular press sometimes claims. For when I get angry,
(25) I generally do so for a reason. To cleanly separate
emotion from reason-giving makes a hash of
human experience.

But if this critique of the modular theory of mind
is valid, how can one account for the fact that brain
(30) scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that “light
up” in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case
of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
what you are seeing when you look at a brain scan is
actually the result of a subtraction. The fMRI is
(35) usually interpreted as a map of the rate of oxygen use
in different parts of the brain, which stands as a
measure of metabolic activity. But what it actually
depicts is the differential rate of oxygen use: one first
takes a baseline measurement in the control condition,
(40) then a second measurement while the subject is
performing some cognitive task. The baseline
measurement is then subtracted from the on-task
measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, is
that whatever remains after the subtraction represents
(45) the metabolic activity associated solely with the
cognitive task in question.

One immediately obvious (but usually
unremarked) problem is that this method obscures the
fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions.
(50) A false impression of neat functional localization is
given by differential brain scans that subtract out all
the distributed brain functions. This subtractive
method produces striking images of the brain at work.
But isn’t the modular theory of mind ultimately
(55) attractive in part because it is illustrated so well by
the products of the subtractive method?

22.

A central function of the final paragraph of the passage is to

There are some basic conceptual problems
hovering about the widespread use of brain scans as
pictures of mental activity. As applied to medical
diagnosis (for example, in diagnosing a brain tumor),
(5) a brain scan is similar in principle to an X-ray: it is
a way of seeing inside the body. Its value is
straightforward and indubitable. However, the use of
neuroimaging in psychology is a fundamentally
different kind of enterprise. It is a research method the
(10) validity of which depends on a premise: that the mind
can be analyzed into separate and distinct modules,
or components, and further that these modules are
instantiated in localized brain regions. This premise
is known as the modular theory of mind.

(15) It may in fact be that neither mental activity,
nor the physical processes that constitute it, are
decomposable into independent modules. Psychologist
William Uttal contends that rather than distinct
entities, the various mental processes are likely to be
(20) properties of a more general mental activity that is
distributed throughout the brain. It cannot be said,
for instance, that the amygdala is the seat of emotion
and the prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, as the
popular press sometimes claims. For when I get angry,
(25) I generally do so for a reason. To cleanly separate
emotion from reason-giving makes a hash of
human experience.

But if this critique of the modular theory of mind
is valid, how can one account for the fact that brain
(30) scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that “light
up” in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case
of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
what you are seeing when you look at a brain scan is
actually the result of a subtraction. The fMRI is
(35) usually interpreted as a map of the rate of oxygen use
in different parts of the brain, which stands as a
measure of metabolic activity. But what it actually
depicts is the differential rate of oxygen use: one first
takes a baseline measurement in the control condition,
(40) then a second measurement while the subject is
performing some cognitive task. The baseline
measurement is then subtracted from the on-task
measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, is
that whatever remains after the subtraction represents
(45) the metabolic activity associated solely with the
cognitive task in question.

One immediately obvious (but usually
unremarked) problem is that this method obscures the
fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions.
(50) A false impression of neat functional localization is
given by differential brain scans that subtract out all
the distributed brain functions. This subtractive
method produces striking images of the brain at work.
But isn’t the modular theory of mind ultimately
(55) attractive in part because it is illustrated so well by
the products of the subtractive method?

23.

The author draws an analogy between brain scans and X-rays primarily in order to

There are some basic conceptual problems
hovering about the widespread use of brain scans as
pictures of mental activity. As applied to medical
diagnosis (for example, in diagnosing a brain tumor),
(5) a brain scan is similar in principle to an X-ray: it is
a way of seeing inside the body. Its value is
straightforward and indubitable. However, the use of
neuroimaging in psychology is a fundamentally
different kind of enterprise. It is a research method the
(10) validity of which depends on a premise: that the mind
can be analyzed into separate and distinct modules,
or components, and further that these modules are
instantiated in localized brain regions. This premise
is known as the modular theory of mind.

(15) It may in fact be that neither mental activity,
nor the physical processes that constitute it, are
decomposable into independent modules. Psychologist
William Uttal contends that rather than distinct
entities, the various mental processes are likely to be
(20) properties of a more general mental activity that is
distributed throughout the brain. It cannot be said,
for instance, that the amygdala is the seat of emotion
and the prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, as the
popular press sometimes claims. For when I get angry,
(25) I generally do so for a reason. To cleanly separate
emotion from reason-giving makes a hash of
human experience.

But if this critique of the modular theory of mind
is valid, how can one account for the fact that brain
(30) scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that “light
up” in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case
of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
what you are seeing when you look at a brain scan is
actually the result of a subtraction. The fMRI is
(35) usually interpreted as a map of the rate of oxygen use
in different parts of the brain, which stands as a
measure of metabolic activity. But what it actually
depicts is the differential rate of oxygen use: one first
takes a baseline measurement in the control condition,
(40) then a second measurement while the subject is
performing some cognitive task. The baseline
measurement is then subtracted from the on-task
measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, is
that whatever remains after the subtraction represents
(45) the metabolic activity associated solely with the
cognitive task in question.

One immediately obvious (but usually
unremarked) problem is that this method obscures the
fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions.
(50) A false impression of neat functional localization is
given by differential brain scans that subtract out all
the distributed brain functions. This subtractive
method produces striking images of the brain at work.
But isn’t the modular theory of mind ultimately
(55) attractive in part because it is illustrated so well by
the products of the subtractive method?

24.

According to the passage, psychologist William Uttal contends that the various mental processes are likely to be

There are some basic conceptual problems
hovering about the widespread use of brain scans as
pictures of mental activity. As applied to medical
diagnosis (for example, in diagnosing a brain tumor),
(5) a brain scan is similar in principle to an X-ray: it is
a way of seeing inside the body. Its value is
straightforward and indubitable. However, the use of
neuroimaging in psychology is a fundamentally
different kind of enterprise. It is a research method the
(10) validity of which depends on a premise: that the mind
can be analyzed into separate and distinct modules,
or components, and further that these modules are
instantiated in localized brain regions. This premise
is known as the modular theory of mind.

(15) It may in fact be that neither mental activity,
nor the physical processes that constitute it, are
decomposable into independent modules. Psychologist
William Uttal contends that rather than distinct
entities, the various mental processes are likely to be
(20) properties of a more general mental activity that is
distributed throughout the brain. It cannot be said,
for instance, that the amygdala is the seat of emotion
and the prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, as the
popular press sometimes claims. For when I get angry,
(25) I generally do so for a reason. To cleanly separate
emotion from reason-giving makes a hash of
human experience.

But if this critique of the modular theory of mind
is valid, how can one account for the fact that brain
(30) scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that “light
up” in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case
of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
what you are seeing when you look at a brain scan is
actually the result of a subtraction. The fMRI is
(35) usually interpreted as a map of the rate of oxygen use
in different parts of the brain, which stands as a
measure of metabolic activity. But what it actually
depicts is the differential rate of oxygen use: one first
takes a baseline measurement in the control condition,
(40) then a second measurement while the subject is
performing some cognitive task. The baseline
measurement is then subtracted from the on-task
measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, is
that whatever remains after the subtraction represents
(45) the metabolic activity associated solely with the
cognitive task in question.

One immediately obvious (but usually
unremarked) problem is that this method obscures the
fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions.
(50) A false impression of neat functional localization is
given by differential brain scans that subtract out all
the distributed brain functions. This subtractive
method produces striking images of the brain at work.
But isn’t the modular theory of mind ultimately
(55) attractive in part because it is illustrated so well by
the products of the subtractive method?

25.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the passage?

There are some basic conceptual problems
hovering about the widespread use of brain scans as
pictures of mental activity. As applied to medical
diagnosis (for example, in diagnosing a brain tumor),
(5) a brain scan is similar in principle to an X-ray: it is
a way of seeing inside the body. Its value is
straightforward and indubitable. However, the use of
neuroimaging in psychology is a fundamentally
different kind of enterprise. It is a research method the
(10) validity of which depends on a premise: that the mind
can be analyzed into separate and distinct modules,
or components, and further that these modules are
instantiated in localized brain regions. This premise
is known as the modular theory of mind.

(15) It may in fact be that neither mental activity,
nor the physical processes that constitute it, are
decomposable into independent modules. Psychologist
William Uttal contends that rather than distinct
entities, the various mental processes are likely to be
(20) properties of a more general mental activity that is
distributed throughout the brain. It cannot be said,
for instance, that the amygdala is the seat of emotion
and the prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, as the
popular press sometimes claims. For when I get angry,
(25) I generally do so for a reason. To cleanly separate
emotion from reason-giving makes a hash of
human experience.

But if this critique of the modular theory of mind
is valid, how can one account for the fact that brain
(30) scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that “light
up” in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case
of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
what you are seeing when you look at a brain scan is
actually the result of a subtraction. The fMRI is
(35) usually interpreted as a map of the rate of oxygen use
in different parts of the brain, which stands as a
measure of metabolic activity. But what it actually
depicts is the differential rate of oxygen use: one first
takes a baseline measurement in the control condition,
(40) then a second measurement while the subject is
performing some cognitive task. The baseline
measurement is then subtracted from the on-task
measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, is
that whatever remains after the subtraction represents
(45) the metabolic activity associated solely with the
cognitive task in question.

One immediately obvious (but usually
unremarked) problem is that this method obscures the
fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions.
(50) A false impression of neat functional localization is
given by differential brain scans that subtract out all
the distributed brain functions. This subtractive
method produces striking images of the brain at work.
But isn’t the modular theory of mind ultimately
(55) attractive in part because it is illustrated so well by
the products of the subtractive method?

26.

Which one of the following is most analogous to the manner in which fMRI scans of brain activity are typically interpreted, as described in the last two paragraphs?

There are some basic conceptual problems
hovering about the widespread use of brain scans as
pictures of mental activity. As applied to medical
diagnosis (for example, in diagnosing a brain tumor),
(5) a brain scan is similar in principle to an X-ray: it is
a way of seeing inside the body. Its value is
straightforward and indubitable. However, the use of
neuroimaging in psychology is a fundamentally
different kind of enterprise. It is a research method the
(10) validity of which depends on a premise: that the mind
can be analyzed into separate and distinct modules,
or components, and further that these modules are
instantiated in localized brain regions. This premise
is known as the modular theory of mind.

(15) It may in fact be that neither mental activity,
nor the physical processes that constitute it, are
decomposable into independent modules. Psychologist
William Uttal contends that rather than distinct
entities, the various mental processes are likely to be
(20) properties of a more general mental activity that is
distributed throughout the brain. It cannot be said,
for instance, that the amygdala is the seat of emotion
and the prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, as the
popular press sometimes claims. For when I get angry,
(25) I generally do so for a reason. To cleanly separate
emotion from reason-giving makes a hash of
human experience.

But if this critique of the modular theory of mind
is valid, how can one account for the fact that brain
(30) scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that “light
up” in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case
of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
what you are seeing when you look at a brain scan is
actually the result of a subtraction. The fMRI is
(35) usually interpreted as a map of the rate of oxygen use
in different parts of the brain, which stands as a
measure of metabolic activity. But what it actually
depicts is the differential rate of oxygen use: one first
takes a baseline measurement in the control condition,
(40) then a second measurement while the subject is
performing some cognitive task. The baseline
measurement is then subtracted from the on-task
measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, is
that whatever remains after the subtraction represents
(45) the metabolic activity associated solely with the
cognitive task in question.

One immediately obvious (but usually
unremarked) problem is that this method obscures the
fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions.
(50) A false impression of neat functional localization is
given by differential brain scans that subtract out all
the distributed brain functions. This subtractive
method produces striking images of the brain at work.
But isn’t the modular theory of mind ultimately
(55) attractive in part because it is illustrated so well by
the products of the subtractive method?