MCAT <- MCAT Critical Reasoning - CARS - Diagnostic Test with Answers and Explanations

MCAT Critical Reasoning - CARS - Diagnostic Test with Answers and Explanations

MCAT Critical Reasoning - CARS - Diagnostic Test with Answers and Explanations

1 / 26

In the present essay, I understand philosophy as an “immanent practice,” which is found in the work of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. This practice is contrary to a philosophy that aims at something transcendental – beyond or above life. “[T]hought is creation, not will to truth,” writes Deleuze.
Seen in this light, Buddhism is not a philosophy, in the sense that it operates with trans-empirical states of being: the divine or a God. A Buddhist is one who has woken up or who experiences an enlightened consciousness. The thinking and practices in Buddhism, therefore, are controlled by will to truth, i.e., by the demands of this “God” or the reality of an “enlightened consciousness.” On the other hand, a pessimist claims that suffering is the “immediate object of our life … evil is precisely that which is positive,” as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer writes. He continues, “… all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and the ending of a pain.” Happiness is the absence of the positive element, i.e., pain. Thus, pessimism corresponds with Buddhism, since the latter also claims that life is suffering.
The tragedy is where the pessimist and the Buddhist part. The Buddhist believes that one can find happiness if one follows the teaching of the Buddha; the pessimist does not share such a belief. However, regardless of the similarities and differences, I question the underlying premises of both Buddhism and pessimism: whether all human beings really seek a predefined meaning; whether the main object of life really is suffering per se – and, if so, whether this suffering might be overcome by referring to a higher form of reality. For a simple example, why should the feeling of pain and suffering be more authentic than the feelings of joy and happiness? The problem is metaphysical. My thesis is that a religion (or a rigid pessimistic philosophy), in general, is less receptive, less open; that it encourages less vulnerability and awareness, because of its embedded “will to truth.” Philosopher Deleuze would say, “We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which separates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one into the other.” In other words, philosophy as presented here becomes an a posteriori test of what is in the midst of coming into being.
An immanent philosophy as presented here, therefore, is open to what – at the present moment – is outside our experience or system of knowledge. It questions its ignorance in order to know more, but it does not claim that another world exists before it encounters this world. “By and large, it is painful to think,” says philosopher Arne Næss, which is not the same as saying that life is painful per se. It is painful to be confronted with one’s ignorance. It is, therefore, through questioning that one moves beyond pessimism and Buddhism and becomes a philosopher. The philosophical creation begins with inventing a problem. This questioning is missing in pessimism and Buddhism, because both apparently know what is true and not true. A true detective does not exclude anything; he remains open to whatever. He questions what he does not know. Thus, the invention of a problem activates the creation of new solutions. The mystery is only a mystery due to one’s ignorance. The philosopher (or true detective) questions his or her ignorance.
A commonality between Buddhism and pessimism cited by the passage author is that:

2 / 26

Which of the following statements best expresses the passage author’s personal belief system? A true philosopher should:

 

In the present essay, I understand philosophy as an “immanent practice,” which is found in the work of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. This practice is contrary to a philosophy that aims at something transcendental – beyond or above life. “[T]hought is creation, not will to truth,” writes Deleuze.
Seen in this light, Buddhism is not a philosophy, in the sense that it operates with trans-empirical states of being: the divine or a God. A Buddhist is one who has woken up or who experiences an enlightened consciousness. The thinking and practices in Buddhism, therefore, are controlled by will to truth, i.e., by the demands of this “God” or the reality of an “enlightened consciousness.” On the other hand, a pessimist claims that suffering is the “immediate object of our life … evil is precisely that which is positive,” as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer writes. He continues, “… all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and the ending of a pain.” Happiness is the absence of the positive element, i.e., pain. Thus, pessimism corresponds with Buddhism, since the latter also claims that life is suffering.
The tragedy is where the pessimist and the Buddhist part. The Buddhist believes that one can find happiness if one follows the teaching of the Buddha; the pessimist does not share such a belief. However, regardless of the similarities and differences, I question the underlying premises of both Buddhism and pessimism: whether all human beings really seek a predefined meaning; whether the main object of life really is suffering per se – and, if so, whether this suffering might be overcome by referring to a higher form of reality. For a simple example, why should the feeling of pain and suffering be more authentic than the feelings of joy and happiness? The problem is metaphysical. My thesis is that a religion (or a rigid pessimistic philosophy), in general, is less receptive, less open; that it encourages less vulnerability and awareness, because of its embedded “will to truth.” Philosopher Deleuze would say, “We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which separates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one into the other.” In other words, philosophy as presented here becomes an a posteriori test of what is in the midst of coming into being.
An immanent philosophy as presented here, therefore, is open to what – at the present moment – is outside our experience or system of knowledge. It questions its ignorance in order to know more, but it does not claim that another world exists before it encounters this world. “By and large, it is painful to think,” says philosopher Arne Næss, which is not the same as saying that life is painful per se. It is painful to be confronted with one’s ignorance. It is, therefore, through questioning that one moves beyond pessimism and Buddhism and becomes a philosopher. The philosophical creation begins with inventing a problem. This questioning is missing in pessimism and Buddhism, because both apparently know what is true and not true. A true detective does not exclude anything; he remains open to whatever. He questions what he does not know. Thus, the invention of a problem activates the creation of new solutions. The mystery is only a mystery due to one’s ignorance. The philosopher (or true detective) questions his or her ignorance.

3 / 26

In paragraph 4, the author quotes philosopher Arne Næss in order to:
In the present essay, I understand philosophy as an “immanent practice,” which is found in the work of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. This practice is contrary to a philosophy that aims at something transcendental – beyond or above life. “[T]hought is creation, not will to truth,” writes Deleuze.
Seen in this light, Buddhism is not a philosophy, in the sense that it operates with trans-empirical states of being: the divine or a God. A Buddhist is one who has woken up or who experiences an enlightened consciousness. The thinking and practices in Buddhism, therefore, are controlled by will to truth, i.e., by the demands of this “God” or the reality of an “enlightened consciousness.” On the other hand, a pessimist claims that suffering is the “immediate object of our life … evil is precisely that which is positive,” as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer writes. He continues, “… all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and the ending of a pain.” Happiness is the absence of the positive element, i.e., pain. Thus, pessimism corresponds with Buddhism, since the latter also claims that life is suffering.
The tragedy is where the pessimist and the Buddhist part. The Buddhist believes that one can find happiness if one follows the teaching of the Buddha; the pessimist does not share such a belief. However, regardless of the similarities and differences, I question the underlying premises of both Buddhism and pessimism: whether all human beings really seek a predefined meaning; whether the main object of life really is suffering per se – and, if so, whether this suffering might be overcome by referring to a higher form of reality. For a simple example, why should the feeling of pain and suffering be more authentic than the feelings of joy and happiness? The problem is metaphysical. My thesis is that a religion (or a rigid pessimistic philosophy), in general, is less receptive, less open; that it encourages less vulnerability and awareness, because of its embedded “will to truth.” Philosopher Deleuze would say, “We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which separates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one into the other.” In other words, philosophy as presented here becomes an a posteriori test of what is in the midst of coming into being.
An immanent philosophy as presented here, therefore, is open to what – at the present moment – is outside our experience or system of knowledge. It questions its ignorance in order to know more, but it does not claim that another world exists before it encounters this world. “By and large, it is painful to think,” says philosopher Arne Næss, which is not the same as saying that life is painful per se. It is painful to be confronted with one’s ignorance. It is, therefore, through questioning that one moves beyond pessimism and Buddhism and becomes a philosopher. The philosophical creation begins with inventing a problem. This questioning is missing in pessimism and Buddhism, because both apparently know what is true and not true. A true detective does not exclude anything; he remains open to whatever. He questions what he does not know. Thus, the invention of a problem activates the creation of new solutions. The mystery is only a mystery due to one’s ignorance. The philosopher (or true detective) questions his or her ignorance.

4 / 26

Which of the following scenarios would the author say is LEAST similar to engaging in “immanent practice” as discussed in paragraph 1? An individual who:

 

In the present essay, I understand philosophy as an “immanent practice,” which is found in the work of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. This practice is contrary to a philosophy that aims at something transcendental – beyond or above life. “[T]hought is creation, not will to truth,” writes Deleuze.
Seen in this light, Buddhism is not a philosophy, in the sense that it operates with trans-empirical states of being: the divine or a God. A Buddhist is one who has woken up or who experiences an enlightened consciousness. The thinking and practices in Buddhism, therefore, are controlled by will to truth, i.e., by the demands of this “God” or the reality of an “enlightened consciousness.” On the other hand, a pessimist claims that suffering is the “immediate object of our life … evil is precisely that which is positive,” as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer writes. He continues, “… all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and the ending of a pain.” Happiness is the absence of the positive element, i.e., pain. Thus, pessimism corresponds with Buddhism, since the latter also claims that life is suffering.
The tragedy is where the pessimist and the Buddhist part. The Buddhist believes that one can find happiness if one follows the teaching of the Buddha; the pessimist does not share such a belief. However, regardless of the similarities and differences, I question the underlying premises of both Buddhism and pessimism: whether all human beings really seek a predefined meaning; whether the main object of life really is suffering per se – and, if so, whether this suffering might be overcome by referring to a higher form of reality. For a simple example, why should the feeling of pain and suffering be more authentic than the feelings of joy and happiness? The problem is metaphysical. My thesis is that a religion (or a rigid pessimistic philosophy), in general, is less receptive, less open; that it encourages less vulnerability and awareness, because of its embedded “will to truth.” Philosopher Deleuze would say, “We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which separates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one into the other.” In other words, philosophy as presented here becomes an a posteriori test of what is in the midst of coming into being.
An immanent philosophy as presented here, therefore, is open to what – at the present moment – is outside our experience or system of knowledge. It questions its ignorance in order to know more, but it does not claim that another world exists before it encounters this world. “By and large, it is painful to think,” says philosopher Arne Næss, which is not the same as saying that life is painful per se. It is painful to be confronted with one’s ignorance. It is, therefore, through questioning that one moves beyond pessimism and Buddhism and becomes a philosopher. The philosophical creation begins with inventing a problem. This questioning is missing in pessimism and Buddhism, because both apparently know what is true and not true. A true detective does not exclude anything; he remains open to whatever. He questions what he does not know. Thus, the invention of a problem activates the creation of new solutions. The mystery is only a mystery due to one’s ignorance. The philosopher (or true detective) questions his or her ignorance.

5 / 26

Which of the following is a weakness in the author’s argument?
In the present essay, I understand philosophy as an “immanent practice,” which is found in the work of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. This practice is contrary to a philosophy that aims at something transcendental – beyond or above life. “[T]hought is creation, not will to truth,” writes Deleuze.
Seen in this light, Buddhism is not a philosophy, in the sense that it operates with trans-empirical states of being: the divine or a God. A Buddhist is one who has woken up or who experiences an enlightened consciousness. The thinking and practices in Buddhism, therefore, are controlled by will to truth, i.e., by the demands of this “God” or the reality of an “enlightened consciousness.” On the other hand, a pessimist claims that suffering is the “immediate object of our life … evil is precisely that which is positive,” as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer writes. He continues, “… all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and the ending of a pain.” Happiness is the absence of the positive element, i.e., pain. Thus, pessimism corresponds with Buddhism, since the latter also claims that life is suffering.
The tragedy is where the pessimist and the Buddhist part. The Buddhist believes that one can find happiness if one follows the teaching of the Buddha; the pessimist does not share such a belief. However, regardless of the similarities and differences, I question the underlying premises of both Buddhism and pessimism: whether all human beings really seek a predefined meaning; whether the main object of life really is suffering per se – and, if so, whether this suffering might be overcome by referring to a higher form of reality. For a simple example, why should the feeling of pain and suffering be more authentic than the feelings of joy and happiness? The problem is metaphysical. My thesis is that a religion (or a rigid pessimistic philosophy), in general, is less receptive, less open; that it encourages less vulnerability and awareness, because of its embedded “will to truth.” Philosopher Deleuze would say, “We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which separates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one into the other.” In other words, philosophy as presented here becomes an a posteriori test of what is in the midst of coming into being.
An immanent philosophy as presented here, therefore, is open to what – at the present moment – is outside our experience or system of knowledge. It questions its ignorance in order to know more, but it does not claim that another world exists before it encounters this world. “By and large, it is painful to think,” says philosopher Arne Næss, which is not the same as saying that life is painful per se. It is painful to be confronted with one’s ignorance. It is, therefore, through questioning that one moves beyond pessimism and Buddhism and becomes a philosopher. The philosophical creation begins with inventing a problem. This questioning is missing in pessimism and Buddhism, because both apparently know what is true and not true. A true detective does not exclude anything; he remains open to whatever. He questions what he does not know. Thus, the invention of a problem activates the creation of new solutions. The mystery is only a mystery due to one’s ignorance. The philosopher (or true detective) questions his or her ignorance.

6 / 26

Politically motivated fearmongering about vaccination is putting children in our community in danger. During the Republican presidential primaries leading up to the 2012 election, former representative Michele Bachmann criticized Governor Rick Perry’s mandate for the HPV vaccine, which protects against a cancer-causing virus. She claimed at the time that she had met parents who believed that the vaccine gave their daughters “mental retardation.” These statements introduced a new precedent of injecting issues of vaccine safety into presidential politics. The American Academy of Pediatrics made emphatic statements at the time to clarify that the HPV vaccine does not cause mental retardation, but by this point the damage had been done: fear had taken hold in parents’ minds.
In 2015, with the presidential election around the corner and a widespread measles outbreak on our minds, the dangerous mix of immunization paranoia and politics continues. Senator Rand Paul, physician and presidential hopeful, claims to have met “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” a statement that is dubious at best. His words are grounded in a fraudulent study that has long since been retracted and its author now discredited. Governor Chris Christie has also entered into the debate by stating, “parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” By employing the rhetoric of individual rights and a fear of big government, those in public office often attempt to score cheap political points and win public acceptance. Politicians like Senator Paul and Governor Christie are brandishing discredited ideas as tenable arguments against clear evidence-based recommendations to vaccinate, sowing confusion amongst parents.
According to the World Health Organization, measles is a leading cause of death worldwide, despite the universal availability of a widely researched and safe vaccine against it. The disease killed over 145,000 individuals, most of them children under 5 years of age, in 2013. Immunization against diseases like measles not only protects those that receive the vaccines but also helps to protect those who are not eligible to receive them, such as young infants and children with deficient immune systems. It is these children who are also at the highest risk of grave complications ranging from encephalitis to pneumonia, and depend on the rest of us to protect them.
It is no secret that vaccination rates across the country are falling. Based on CDC data, the nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rate among 19-35 month-olds is 91.9%, down from a rate of 92.3% in 2006. Rates are falling most in Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Connecticut and Virginia. More and more parents will choose to opt out of immunizing their children for fear of side effects, thanks to the dissemination of groundless claims. In response to the current epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a recent statement once again exhorting parents to vaccinate their children, reiterating what they have said for decades: the measles vaccine is safe and effective.
We are already burdened with a wide number of celebrities, discredited researchers, and physicians relying on anecdotes and hearsay who are more than willing to use the vaccine controversy to gain quick publicity. Politicians should be clear to the public on the proven science of vaccines and should avoid muddying the waters further. It would be better for the candidates, too: it is widely believed that Michelle Bachmann lost credibility because of her statements on vaccines in 2008. Senator Paul and Governor Christie should learn a lesson from her failure and be willing to communicate a clear message to the public: vaccines are safe and are effective at protecting against dangerous diseases. Unnecessary vaccine exemptions put our greatest asset – our children – at risk.
Suppose that a national program, initially launched in 2006, in which 19-35 month-old babies were given free vaccinations in rural areas, was recently ended because it was too expensive. How would this new information impact the author’s main point about the consequences of politicization of vaccine safety on vaccination rates? 

7 / 26

The passage author’s main message is best described by which of the following statements? Politicians are disseminating fear about vaccines due to their:
Politically motivated fearmongering about vaccination is putting children in our community in danger. During the Republican presidential primaries leading up to the 2012 election, former representative Michele Bachmann criticized Governor Rick Perry’s mandate for the HPV vaccine, which protects against a cancer-causing virus. She claimed at the time that she had met parents who believed that the vaccine gave their daughters “mental retardation.” These statements introduced a new precedent of injecting issues of vaccine safety into presidential politics. The American Academy of Pediatrics made emphatic statements at the time to clarify that the HPV vaccine does not cause mental retardation, but by this point the damage had been done: fear had taken hold in parents’ minds.
In 2015, with the presidential election around the corner and a widespread measles outbreak on our minds, the dangerous mix of immunization paranoia and politics continues. Senator Rand Paul, physician and presidential hopeful, claims to have met “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” a statement that is dubious at best. His words are grounded in a fraudulent study that has long since been retracted and its author now discredited. Governor Chris Christie has also entered into the debate by stating, “parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” By employing the rhetoric of individual rights and a fear of big government, those in public office often attempt to score cheap political points and win public acceptance. Politicians like Senator Paul and Governor Christie are brandishing discredited ideas as tenable arguments against clear evidence-based recommendations to vaccinate, sowing confusion amongst parents.
According to the World Health Organization, measles is a leading cause of death worldwide, despite the universal availability of a widely researched and safe vaccine against it. The disease killed over 145,000 individuals, most of them children under 5 years of age, in 2013. Immunization against diseases like measles not only protects those that receive the vaccines but also helps to protect those who are not eligible to receive them, such as young infants and children with deficient immune systems. It is these children who are also at the highest risk of grave complications ranging from encephalitis to pneumonia, and depend on the rest of us to protect them.
It is no secret that vaccination rates across the country are falling. Based on CDC data, the nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rate among 19-35 month-olds is 91.9%, down from a rate of 92.3% in 2006. Rates are falling most in Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Connecticut and Virginia. More and more parents will choose to opt out of immunizing their children for fear of side effects, thanks to the dissemination of groundless claims. In response to the current epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a recent statement once again exhorting parents to vaccinate their children, reiterating what they have said for decades: the measles vaccine is safe and effective.
We are already burdened with a wide number of celebrities, discredited researchers, and physicians relying on anecdotes and hearsay who are more than willing to use the vaccine controversy to gain quick publicity. Politicians should be clear to the public on the proven science of vaccines and should avoid muddying the waters further. It would be better for the candidates, too: it is widely believed that Michelle Bachmann lost credibility because of her statements on vaccines in 2008. Senator Paul and Governor Christie should learn a lesson from her failure and be willing to communicate a clear message to the public: vaccines are safe and are effective at protecting against dangerous diseases. Unnecessary vaccine exemptions put our greatest asset – our children – at risk.

8 / 26

It can be inferred from the author’s discussion of individual choice in paragraph 2 that the author believes that such rights:
Politically motivated fearmongering about vaccination is putting children in our community in danger. During the Republican presidential primaries leading up to the 2012 election, former representative Michele Bachmann criticized Governor Rick Perry’s mandate for the HPV vaccine, which protects against a cancer-causing virus. She claimed at the time that she had met parents who believed that the vaccine gave their daughters “mental retardation.” These statements introduced a new precedent of injecting issues of vaccine safety into presidential politics. The American Academy of Pediatrics made emphatic statements at the time to clarify that the HPV vaccine does not cause mental retardation, but by this point the damage had been done: fear had taken hold in parents’ minds.
In 2015, with the presidential election around the corner and a widespread measles outbreak on our minds, the dangerous mix of immunization paranoia and politics continues. Senator Rand Paul, physician and presidential hopeful, claims to have met “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” a statement that is dubious at best. His words are grounded in a fraudulent study that has long since been retracted and its author now discredited. Governor Chris Christie has also entered into the debate by stating, “parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” By employing the rhetoric of individual rights and a fear of big government, those in public office often attempt to score cheap political points and win public acceptance. Politicians like Senator Paul and Governor Christie are brandishing discredited ideas as tenable arguments against clear evidence-based recommendations to vaccinate, sowing confusion amongst parents.
According to the World Health Organization, measles is a leading cause of death worldwide, despite the universal availability of a widely researched and safe vaccine against it. The disease killed over 145,000 individuals, most of them children under 5 years of age, in 2013. Immunization against diseases like measles not only protects those that receive the vaccines but also helps to protect those who are not eligible to receive them, such as young infants and children with deficient immune systems. It is these children who are also at the highest risk of grave complications ranging from encephalitis to pneumonia, and depend on the rest of us to protect them.
It is no secret that vaccination rates across the country are falling. Based on CDC data, the nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rate among 19-35 month-olds is 91.9%, down from a rate of 92.3% in 2006. Rates are falling most in Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Connecticut and Virginia. More and more parents will choose to opt out of immunizing their children for fear of side effects, thanks to the dissemination of groundless claims. In response to the current epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a recent statement once again exhorting parents to vaccinate their children, reiterating what they have said for decades: the measles vaccine is safe and effective.
We are already burdened with a wide number of celebrities, discredited researchers, and physicians relying on anecdotes and hearsay who are more than willing to use the vaccine controversy to gain quick publicity. Politicians should be clear to the public on the proven science of vaccines and should avoid muddying the waters further. It would be better for the candidates, too: it is widely believed that Michelle Bachmann lost credibility because of her statements on vaccines in 2008. Senator Paul and Governor Christie should learn a lesson from her failure and be willing to communicate a clear message to the public: vaccines are safe and are effective at protecting against dangerous diseases. Unnecessary vaccine exemptions put our greatest asset – our children – at risk.

9 / 26

The function of paragraph 3 mentioning the World Health Organization’s assessment of worldwide deaths due to measles is to:
Politically motivated fearmongering about vaccination is putting children in our community in danger. During the Republican presidential primaries leading up to the 2012 election, former representative Michele Bachmann criticized Governor Rick Perry’s mandate for the HPV vaccine, which protects against a cancer-causing virus. She claimed at the time that she had met parents who believed that the vaccine gave their daughters “mental retardation.” These statements introduced a new precedent of injecting issues of vaccine safety into presidential politics. The American Academy of Pediatrics made emphatic statements at the time to clarify that the HPV vaccine does not cause mental retardation, but by this point the damage had been done: fear had taken hold in parents’ minds.
In 2015, with the presidential election around the corner and a widespread measles outbreak on our minds, the dangerous mix of immunization paranoia and politics continues. Senator Rand Paul, physician and presidential hopeful, claims to have met “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” a statement that is dubious at best. His words are grounded in a fraudulent study that has long since been retracted and its author now discredited. Governor Chris Christie has also entered into the debate by stating, “parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” By employing the rhetoric of individual rights and a fear of big government, those in public office often attempt to score cheap political points and win public acceptance. Politicians like Senator Paul and Governor Christie are brandishing discredited ideas as tenable arguments against clear evidence-based recommendations to vaccinate, sowing confusion amongst parents.
According to the World Health Organization, measles is a leading cause of death worldwide, despite the universal availability of a widely researched and safe vaccine against it. The disease killed over 145,000 individuals, most of them children under 5 years of age, in 2013. Immunization against diseases like measles not only protects those that receive the vaccines but also helps to protect those who are not eligible to receive them, such as young infants and children with deficient immune systems. It is these children who are also at the highest risk of grave complications ranging from encephalitis to pneumonia, and depend on the rest of us to protect them.
It is no secret that vaccination rates across the country are falling. Based on CDC data, the nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rate among 19-35 month-olds is 91.9%, down from a rate of 92.3% in 2006. Rates are falling most in Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Connecticut and Virginia. More and more parents will choose to opt out of immunizing their children for fear of side effects, thanks to the dissemination of groundless claims. In response to the current epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a recent statement once again exhorting parents to vaccinate their children, reiterating what they have said for decades: the measles vaccine is safe and effective.
We are already burdened with a wide number of celebrities, discredited researchers, and physicians relying on anecdotes and hearsay who are more than willing to use the vaccine controversy to gain quick publicity. Politicians should be clear to the public on the proven science of vaccines and should avoid muddying the waters further. It would be better for the candidates, too: it is widely believed that Michelle Bachmann lost credibility because of her statements on vaccines in 2008. Senator Paul and Governor Christie should learn a lesson from her failure and be willing to communicate a clear message to the public: vaccines are safe and are effective at protecting against dangerous diseases. Unnecessary vaccine exemptions put our greatest asset – our children – at risk.

10 / 26

Which of the following assumptions is most central to the author’s argument?
Politically motivated fearmongering about vaccination is putting children in our community in danger. During the Republican presidential primaries leading up to the 2012 election, former representative Michele Bachmann criticized Governor Rick Perry’s mandate for the HPV vaccine, which protects against a cancer-causing virus. She claimed at the time that she had met parents who believed that the vaccine gave their daughters “mental retardation.” These statements introduced a new precedent of injecting issues of vaccine safety into presidential politics. The American Academy of Pediatrics made emphatic statements at the time to clarify that the HPV vaccine does not cause mental retardation, but by this point the damage had been done: fear had taken hold in parents’ minds.
In 2015, with the presidential election around the corner and a widespread measles outbreak on our minds, the dangerous mix of immunization paranoia and politics continues. Senator Rand Paul, physician and presidential hopeful, claims to have met “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” a statement that is dubious at best. His words are grounded in a fraudulent study that has long since been retracted and its author now discredited. Governor Chris Christie has also entered into the debate by stating, “parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” By employing the rhetoric of individual rights and a fear of big government, those in public office often attempt to score cheap political points and win public acceptance. Politicians like Senator Paul and Governor Christie are brandishing discredited ideas as tenable arguments against clear evidence-based recommendations to vaccinate, sowing confusion amongst parents.
According to the World Health Organization, measles is a leading cause of death worldwide, despite the universal availability of a widely researched and safe vaccine against it. The disease killed over 145,000 individuals, most of them children under 5 years of age, in 2013. Immunization against diseases like measles not only protects those that receive the vaccines but also helps to protect those who are not eligible to receive them, such as young infants and children with deficient immune systems. It is these children who are also at the highest risk of grave complications ranging from encephalitis to pneumonia, and depend on the rest of us to protect them.
It is no secret that vaccination rates across the country are falling. Based on CDC data, the nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rate among 19-35 month-olds is 91.9%, down from a rate of 92.3% in 2006. Rates are falling most in Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Connecticut and Virginia. More and more parents will choose to opt out of immunizing their children for fear of side effects, thanks to the dissemination of groundless claims. In response to the current epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a recent statement once again exhorting parents to vaccinate their children, reiterating what they have said for decades: the measles vaccine is safe and effective.
We are already burdened with a wide number of celebrities, discredited researchers, and physicians relying on anecdotes and hearsay who are more than willing to use the vaccine controversy to gain quick publicity. Politicians should be clear to the public on the proven science of vaccines and should avoid muddying the waters further. It would be better for the candidates, too: it is widely believed that Michelle Bachmann lost credibility because of her statements on vaccines in 2008. Senator Paul and Governor Christie should learn a lesson from her failure and be willing to communicate a clear message to the public: vaccines are safe and are effective at protecting against dangerous diseases. Unnecessary vaccine exemptions put our greatest asset – our children – at risk.

11 / 26

Which of the following hypothetical politicians is acting most consistent with the author’s recommendations?
Politically motivated fearmongering about vaccination is putting children in our community in danger. During the Republican presidential primaries leading up to the 2012 election, former representative Michele Bachmann criticized Governor Rick Perry’s mandate for the HPV vaccine, which protects against a cancer-causing virus. She claimed at the time that she had met parents who believed that the vaccine gave their daughters “mental retardation.” These statements introduced a new precedent of injecting issues of vaccine safety into presidential politics. The American Academy of Pediatrics made emphatic statements at the time to clarify that the HPV vaccine does not cause mental retardation, but by this point the damage had been done: fear had taken hold in parents’ minds.
In 2015, with the presidential election around the corner and a widespread measles outbreak on our minds, the dangerous mix of immunization paranoia and politics continues. Senator Rand Paul, physician and presidential hopeful, claims to have met “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” a statement that is dubious at best. His words are grounded in a fraudulent study that has long since been retracted and its author now discredited. Governor Chris Christie has also entered into the debate by stating, “parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” By employing the rhetoric of individual rights and a fear of big government, those in public office often attempt to score cheap political points and win public acceptance. Politicians like Senator Paul and Governor Christie are brandishing discredited ideas as tenable arguments against clear evidence-based recommendations to vaccinate, sowing confusion amongst parents.
According to the World Health Organization, measles is a leading cause of death worldwide, despite the universal availability of a widely researched and safe vaccine against it. The disease killed over 145,000 individuals, most of them children under 5 years of age, in 2013. Immunization against diseases like measles not only protects those that receive the vaccines but also helps to protect those who are not eligible to receive them, such as young infants and children with deficient immune systems. It is these children who are also at the highest risk of grave complications ranging from encephalitis to pneumonia, and depend on the rest of us to protect them.
It is no secret that vaccination rates across the country are falling. Based on CDC data, the nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rate among 19-35 month-olds is 91.9%, down from a rate of 92.3% in 2006. Rates are falling most in Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Connecticut and Virginia. More and more parents will choose to opt out of immunizing their children for fear of side effects, thanks to the dissemination of groundless claims. In response to the current epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a recent statement once again exhorting parents to vaccinate their children, reiterating what they have said for decades: the measles vaccine is safe and effective.
We are already burdened with a wide number of celebrities, discredited researchers, and physicians relying on anecdotes and hearsay who are more than willing to use the vaccine controversy to gain quick publicity. Politicians should be clear to the public on the proven science of vaccines and should avoid muddying the waters further. It would be better for the candidates, too: it is widely believed that Michelle Bachmann lost credibility because of her statements on vaccines in 2008. Senator Paul and Governor Christie should learn a lesson from her failure and be willing to communicate a clear message to the public: vaccines are safe and are effective at protecting against dangerous diseases. Unnecessary vaccine exemptions put our greatest asset – our children – at risk.

12 / 26

Historically, sociologists have argued that what makes democracies effective is active citizen participation in civic affairs. They developed what was called a psycho-cultural approach to the study of political phenomena. According to the psycho-cultural approach, individual values and beliefs explain why some societies appeared more vibrant than others in creating associations and, consequently, why democracies differed in efficiency despite sharing similar institutions like universal suffrage, division of power, a political constitution, free elections, and so forth. Similarly and more recently, the work of sociologist Robert Putnam on Italian regional and local governments argued that regions in Northern Italy were better governed because of a longer tradition of civic associations compared to the regions in Southern Italy. Putnam explains the relationship between strong networks of citizen participation and positive institutional performance in terms of “social capital” — the informal networks, norms of reciprocity and trust that are fostered among individual members of the same association.
While the two studies cited above stress the importance of values and belief systems, several social scientists have more recently articulated a structural perspective to explain the importance of associations more broadly. From this perspective, social networks have emerged as a key factor in understanding modern associations. Within the literature that focuses on associations as networks, tension has emerged between two approaches. On the one hand, scholars have highlighted the role of social networks, and of friendship in particular, for explaining why people participate in associations. On the other hand, scholars have stressed the importance of identity processes in explaining the growth of associations. People join because the association provides them with a new identity and new circles of friends that they are interested in acquiring. With some notable exceptions, both approaches draw heavily from research on social movements.
The research of Sociologist Doug McAdam showed that activists who participated in the 1964 Mississippi summer camp were more likely to have friends already at the camp. McAdam analyzed the role of networks by studying the centrality of the people recruited to participate in the summer camp, further confirming the importance of pre-existing ties. On the other hand, sociologist Eugene Weber has articulated, on historical and institutional grounds, a view counter to the importance of pre-existing friendship ties for explaining participation. Weber describes the ways in which the French state facilitated the creation of a national identity among the locally identified members of the population by enabling contact among the soon-to-become “French'' individuals from the country's provinces. National universities, military service, corporations, and administrative bodies all facilitate the meeting of people from various parts of the state's territory. With contact comes the opportunity for the development of social relations, and the formation of such relations confirms one's loyalty to the nation. Membership in these institutions promotes new identities, which in turn influence participation.
While Weber's argument focuses on institutions rather than associations, a similar argument about the importance of identity has been advanced by another set of social movement scholars interested in processes of identity formation and collective action. Sociologist Deborah Minkoff, for instance, has argued that those in certain disadvantaged categories such as gays and lesbians, the elderly, and women, lacked access to the infrastructure that facilitates generation of ties between members. Mobilization of these groups creates identities that then produced social ties. Further reinforcing this argument and providing a more formalized approach to it, some sociologists have used data from online communities to show the existence of a non-network growth model for communities and, by extension, for associations. In this case individuals join because they share a common interest with the community. The new relationships individuals form with members of the association subsequently helped to promote a new identity.
Paragraph 4 includes the assertion that “gays and lesbians, the elderly, and women, lacked access to the infrastructure that facilitates generation of ties between members.” This passage uses this assertion to support which of the following?

13 / 26

What is the best summary of the way that the author characterizes the various theories of associations?

14 / 26

Suppose that, historically, one American Confederate army battalion enlisted soldiers who were from the same region, while another battalion enlisted soldiers from many regions. Which of the following predictions about desertion rates is consistent with the theory supported by the research of McAdam in paragraph 3?
I. Lower desertion and higher participation is predicted in battalions from many regions.
II. Lower desertion and higher participation is predicted in battalions from the same region.
III. Equal desertion rates in all battalions is predicted due to compulsory social ties imposed by the state.

15 / 26

The author’s attitude toward the view that pre-existing social ties promote participation in associations is one of:

16 / 26

Paragraph 2 discusses tension between two approaches regarding associations as networks. Which of the following, if true, would lend some support to both of these approaches? People are most likely to join associations when:

17 / 26

Which of the following major assumptions does Eugene Weber make in his conclusions about pre-existing friendships and associations in paragraph 3?

18 / 26

If a drug company could take all of the positive effects of exercise and put them into a pill, they’d be the most successful company in history. It is, in fact, nearly impossible to overstate the positive effects that regular exercise has on nearly every facet of the body’s physiological and the mind’s psychological state. Exercise has been demonstrated to not just slow the progression of, but to reverse, many of the symptoms of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, and hypertension. It can delay the onset of dementia, reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression disorders, and aid in smoking cessation programs.

And yet when patients meet with their physicians, the overwhelming majority of primary care doctors fail to discuss the importance of exercise with patients. To the extent that the topic is discussed at all, the doctor will make, at best, passing remarks about the importance of an exercise program. Even more perversely, there is a strong correlation between lower economic class and decreased likelihood of physician-recommended exercise programs, despite the even stronger correlation between lower economic class and many of the diseases that exercise would most directly benefit (most notably obesity and type 2 diabetes). That is to say, those patients who most need regular exercise are the ones least likely to have a doctor that strongly recommends such a program.

Why this connection exists is still somewhat unclear, although research is slowly shedding light on the topic. Fundamentally, public health scientists examine two different facets of the correlation: patient-sided factors and healthcare provider-sided factors. Thus, working and lower-class patients may not have access to the kind of doctors that will recommend exercise, or doctors may change how they treat patients based on perceived economic class.

To date, research seems to suggest both of these factors work in concert. In a groundbreaking study at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, experimenters created audio recordings of over 5,000 patient-physician interactions for patients that were classified as obese. The patient population was categorized into three broad categories of economic class based on income. Researchers found that physicians were 22% more likely to discuss exercise regimens with the high-class patient group than the lowest, and that when exercise was discussed, doctors spent a staggering 420% more time in conversation about exercise with the high-economic class group than either the middle or low-class group. Despite these stark findings, the researchers’ failure to control for factors of ethnicity and gender have created large enough concerns about methodological validity to lead some critics to dismiss the study entirely.

More promising are results obtained from examining the patient-sided factors, including frequency of patient-initiated discussions about exercise programs and patient access to high quality primary care. Here, surveys of both patients and healthcare workers have demonstrated a strong correlation between a patient’s economic class and their likelihood of initiating a conversation about exercise with their healthcare provider. This correlation seems to exist regardless of the health status of the patient, and any similarities between the patient and provider in terms of demographic categories. The findings suggest, perhaps, that patients from higher-economic classes are simply more comfortable initiating conversations with their healthcare professionals.

A final irony was revealed in the most recent major study published on the topic, which found no correlation between a patient’s ability to start and stick with an exercise regimen and how frequently such programs were discussed with healthcare professionals.

 

Question 1

In the study discussed in the paragraph 4, the researchers created audio recordings of the doctor-patient interactions in order to:

19 / 26

Which of the following studies would provide the best evaluation of the author’s speculations at the end of the paragraph 5?

If a drug company could take all of the positive effects of exercise and put them into a pill, they’d be the most successful company in history. It is, in fact, nearly impossible to overstate the positive effects that regular exercise has on nearly every facet of the body’s physiological and the mind’s psychological state. Exercise has been demonstrated to not just slow the progression of, but to reverse, many of the symptoms of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, and hypertension. It can delay the onset of dementia, reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression disorders, and aid in smoking cessation programs.

And yet when patients meet with their physicians, the overwhelming majority of primary care doctors fail to discuss the importance of exercise with patients. To the extent that the topic is discussed at all, the doctor will make, at best, passing remarks about the importance of an exercise program. Even more perversely, there is a strong correlation between lower economic class and decreased likelihood of physician-recommended exercise programs, despite the even stronger correlation between lower economic class and many of the diseases that exercise would most directly benefit (most notably obesity and type 2 diabetes). That is to say, those patients who most need regular exercise are the ones least likely to have a doctor that strongly recommends such a program.

Why this connection exists is still somewhat unclear, although research is slowly shedding light on the topic. Fundamentally, public health scientists examine two different facets of the correlation: patient-sided factors and healthcare provider-sided factors. Thus, working and lower-class patients may not have access to the kind of doctors that will recommend exercise, or doctors may change how they treat patients based on perceived economic class.

To date, research seems to suggest both of these factors work in concert. In a groundbreaking study at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, experimenters created audio recordings of over 5,000 patient-physician interactions for patients that were classified as obese. The patient population was categorized into three broad categories of economic class based on income. Researchers found that physicians were 22% more likely to discuss exercise regimens with the high-class patient group than the lowest, and that when exercise was discussed, doctors spent a staggering 420% more time in conversation about exercise with the high-economic class group than either the middle or low-class group. Despite these stark findings, the researchers’ failure to control for factors of ethnicity and gender have created large enough concerns about methodological validity to lead some critics to dismiss the study entirely.

More promising are results obtained from examining the patient-sided factors, including frequency of patient-initiated discussions about exercise programs and patient access to high quality primary care. Here, surveys of both patients and healthcare workers have demonstrated a strong correlation between a patient’s economic class and their likelihood of initiating a conversation about exercise with their healthcare provider. This correlation seems to exist regardless of the health status of the patient, and any similarities between the patient and provider in terms of demographic categories. The findings suggest, perhaps, that patients from higher-economic classes are simply more comfortable initiating conversations with their healthcare professionals.

A final irony was revealed in the most recent major study published on the topic, which found no correlation between a patient’s ability to start and stick with an exercise regimen and how frequently such programs were discussed with healthcare professionals.

 

20 / 26

For which of the following statements does the passage provide the LEAST explanation or support?

 

If a drug company could take all of the positive effects of exercise and put them into a pill, they’d be the most successful company in history. It is, in fact, nearly impossible to overstate the positive effects that regular exercise has on nearly every facet of the body’s physiological and the mind’s psychological state. Exercise has been demonstrated to not just slow the progression of, but to reverse, many of the symptoms of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, and hypertension. It can delay the onset of dementia, reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression disorders, and aid in smoking cessation programs.

And yet when patients meet with their physicians, the overwhelming majority of primary care doctors fail to discuss the importance of exercise with patients. To the extent that the topic is discussed at all, the doctor will make, at best, passing remarks about the importance of an exercise program. Even more perversely, there is a strong correlation between lower economic class and decreased likelihood of physician-recommended exercise programs, despite the even stronger correlation between lower economic class and many of the diseases that exercise would most directly benefit (most notably obesity and type 2 diabetes). That is to say, those patients who most need regular exercise are the ones least likely to have a doctor that strongly recommends such a program.

Why this connection exists is still somewhat unclear, although research is slowly shedding light on the topic. Fundamentally, public health scientists examine two different facets of the correlation: patient-sided factors and healthcare provider-sided factors. Thus, working and lower-class patients may not have access to the kind of doctors that will recommend exercise, or doctors may change how they treat patients based on perceived economic class.

To date, research seems to suggest both of these factors work in concert. In a groundbreaking study at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, experimenters created audio recordings of over 5,000 patient-physician interactions for patients that were classified as obese. The patient population was categorized into three broad categories of economic class based on income. Researchers found that physicians were 22% more likely to discuss exercise regimens with the high-class patient group than the lowest, and that when exercise was discussed, doctors spent a staggering 420% more time in conversation about exercise with the high-economic class group than either the middle or low-class group. Despite these stark findings, the researchers’ failure to control for factors of ethnicity and gender have created large enough concerns about methodological validity to lead some critics to dismiss the study entirely.

More promising are results obtained from examining the patient-sided factors, including frequency of patient-initiated discussions about exercise programs and patient access to high quality primary care. Here, surveys of both patients and healthcare workers have demonstrated a strong correlation between a patient’s economic class and their likelihood of initiating a conversation about exercise with their healthcare provider. This correlation seems to exist regardless of the health status of the patient, and any similarities between the patient and provider in terms of demographic categories. The findings suggest, perhaps, that patients from higher-economic classes are simply more comfortable initiating conversations with their healthcare professionals.

A final irony was revealed in the most recent major study published on the topic, which found no correlation between a patient’s ability to start and stick with an exercise regimen and how frequently such programs were discussed with healthcare professionals.

 

21 / 26

Which of the following could serve as an appropriate title for the passage?

I. Physician-Recommended Exercise Plans: Disparities in Action

II. The Benefits of Exercise in Addiction Recovery

III. Doctors and Patients Both Fail to Adequately Address Exercise

 

 

If a drug company could take all of the positive effects of exercise and put them into a pill, they’d be the most successful company in history. It is, in fact, nearly impossible to overstate the positive effects that regular exercise has on nearly every facet of the body’s physiological and the mind’s psychological state. Exercise has been demonstrated to not just slow the progression of, but to reverse, many of the symptoms of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, and hypertension. It can delay the onset of dementia, reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression disorders, and aid in smoking cessation programs.

And yet when patients meet with their physicians, the overwhelming majority of primary care doctors fail to discuss the importance of exercise with patients. To the extent that the topic is discussed at all, the doctor will make, at best, passing remarks about the importance of an exercise program. Even more perversely, there is a strong correlation between lower economic class and decreased likelihood of physician-recommended exercise programs, despite the even stronger correlation between lower economic class and many of the diseases that exercise would most directly benefit (most notably obesity and type 2 diabetes). That is to say, those patients who most need regular exercise are the ones least likely to have a doctor that strongly recommends such a program.

Why this connection exists is still somewhat unclear, although research is slowly shedding light on the topic. Fundamentally, public health scientists examine two different facets of the correlation: patient-sided factors and healthcare provider-sided factors. Thus, working and lower-class patients may not have access to the kind of doctors that will recommend exercise, or doctors may change how they treat patients based on perceived economic class.

To date, research seems to suggest both of these factors work in concert. In a groundbreaking study at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, experimenters created audio recordings of over 5,000 patient-physician interactions for patients that were classified as obese. The patient population was categorized into three broad categories of economic class based on income. Researchers found that physicians were 22% more likely to discuss exercise regimens with the high-class patient group than the lowest, and that when exercise was discussed, doctors spent a staggering 420% more time in conversation about exercise with the high-economic class group than either the middle or low-class group. Despite these stark findings, the researchers’ failure to control for factors of ethnicity and gender have created large enough concerns about methodological validity to lead some critics to dismiss the study entirely.

More promising are results obtained from examining the patient-sided factors, including frequency of patient-initiated discussions about exercise programs and patient access to high quality primary care. Here, surveys of both patients and healthcare workers have demonstrated a strong correlation between a patient’s economic class and their likelihood of initiating a conversation about exercise with their healthcare provider. This correlation seems to exist regardless of the health status of the patient, and any similarities between the patient and provider in terms of demographic categories. The findings suggest, perhaps, that patients from higher-economic classes are simply more comfortable initiating conversations with their healthcare professionals.

A final irony was revealed in the most recent major study published on the topic, which found no correlation between a patient’s ability to start and stick with an exercise regimen and how frequently such programs were discussed with healthcare professionals.

 

22 / 26

Mexicans have long attributed the origins of their political system to the Revolution of 1910-20. They cite the constitution of 1917 as the foundation of their modern political institutions and practices. Mexico's governing institutions and political culture also bear the imprint of three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. Mexicans' adherence to a highly codified civil law tradition, their acceptance of heavy state involvement in business and civic affairs, and the deference accorded the executive over other branches of government can be traced to the administrative and legal practices of the colonial period.

During the 1920s, President Elías Calles reorganized Mexican politics along corporatist lines to contain latent social conflicts. Calles expanded government bureaucracy to enable it to mediate among rival constituencies and to dispense state funds to organizations supportive of the "official" party. Calles also created umbrella organizations that lumped together disparate groups according to broad functional categories. Newly created interest groups depended heavily on the state for their financing and were required to maintain strong ties to the ruling party, the newly created Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP).

Calles's successor, Lázaro Cárdenas, revived populism as a force within the IRP by redistributing land to landless peasants via state-sponsored communal farming known as the ejido system. Cárdenas emphasized nationalism as a political force by expropriating the holdings of foreign oil corporations. By 1942, the political processes and institutions that would define Mexican politics for the next forty years were established: a strong federal government dominated by a civilian president and his loyalists within the ruling party, a symbiotic relationship between the state and the official party, a regular rotation of power among rival factions within a de facto single-party system, and a highly structured corporatist relationship between the state and government-sponsored businesses.

During the 1980s, the pattern of Mexican politics instituted by Calles and Cárdenas began to break down. Public funding for a variety of programs dried up, which led to the state's role in the economy being scaled back, and the relationships developed over four decades between government agencies and legally recognized constituent groups were weakened. An internal rift emerged between the populists and the more technocratic wing of the ruling party over the market reforms and the authoritarian nature of the IRP-dominated political system. This internal rift developed into the first major mass defection from the IRP when a key minority group broke ranks and contested the 1988 presidential election as a coalition of populist parties.

Self-preservation can help explain this breach in partisanship. IRP members’ longstanding loyalty to the party means that in the absence of disrupting forces, they can be expected to vote for that party. However, when drastic changes occur in the political and financial landscape, members are responsive to a range of pressures that can weaken their loyalty. Obvious variations occur in such factors as the charisma of the candidates, the impact of economic and domestic policy issues, foreign policy, and especially local economic changes. These factors may well have caused members to dissociate from the IRP.

Since 1987, the IRP has managed to defeat most of the serious electoral challenges to its central role in Mexican politics. However, by 2002, most believed, correctly, that the IRP-dominated political system was in an advanced state of decay and that a move to greater pluralism in organized political activity was at hand. How this transition period would unfold, and whether it would result in a more participatory and competitive political process for Mexico, was yet to be determined. Traumatic experiences during the nineteenth century, including foreign military occupations, the loss of half of the national territory to the United States, as well as the disillusion sown by a series of unconstitutional regimes, continue to have a profound impact on contemporary political culture.

According to the passage, one problem that likely precipitated the 1980s crisis was:

23 / 26

Which of the following is NOT characterized as a contributing factor to present-day Mexican politics?

 

Mexicans have long attributed the origins of their political system to the Revolution of 1910-20. They cite the constitution of 1917 as the foundation of their modern political institutions and practices. Mexico's governing institutions and political culture also bear the imprint of three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. Mexicans' adherence to a highly codified civil law tradition, their acceptance of heavy state involvement in business and civic affairs, and the deference accorded the executive over other branches of government can be traced to the administrative and legal practices of the colonial period.

During the 1920s, President Elías Calles reorganized Mexican politics along corporatist lines to contain latent social conflicts. Calles expanded government bureaucracy to enable it to mediate among rival constituencies and to dispense state funds to organizations supportive of the "official" party. Calles also created umbrella organizations that lumped together disparate groups according to broad functional categories. Newly created interest groups depended heavily on the state for their financing and were required to maintain strong ties to the ruling party, the newly created Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP).

Calles's successor, Lázaro Cárdenas, revived populism as a force within the IRP by redistributing land to landless peasants via state-sponsored communal farming known as the ejido system. Cárdenas emphasized nationalism as a political force by expropriating the holdings of foreign oil corporations. By 1942, the political processes and institutions that would define Mexican politics for the next forty years were established: a strong federal government dominated by a civilian president and his loyalists within the ruling party, a symbiotic relationship between the state and the official party, a regular rotation of power among rival factions within a de facto single-party system, and a highly structured corporatist relationship between the state and government-sponsored businesses.

During the 1980s, the pattern of Mexican politics instituted by Calles and Cárdenas began to break down. Public funding for a variety of programs dried up, which led to the state's role in the economy being scaled back, and the relationships developed over four decades between government agencies and legally recognized constituent groups were weakened. An internal rift emerged between the populists and the more technocratic wing of the ruling party over the market reforms and the authoritarian nature of the IRP-dominated political system. This internal rift developed into the first major mass defection from the IRP when a key minority group broke ranks and contested the 1988 presidential election as a coalition of populist parties.

Self-preservation can help explain this breach in partisanship. IRP members’ longstanding loyalty to the party means that in the absence of disrupting forces, they can be expected to vote for that party. However, when drastic changes occur in the political and financial landscape, members are responsive to a range of pressures that can weaken their loyalty. Obvious variations occur in such factors as the charisma of the candidates, the impact of economic and domestic policy issues, foreign policy, and especially local economic changes. These factors may well have caused members to dissociate from the IRP.

Since 1987, the IRP has managed to defeat most of the serious electoral challenges to its central role in Mexican politics. However, by 2002, most believed, correctly, that the IRP-dominated political system was in an advanced state of decay and that a move to greater pluralism in organized political activity was at hand. How this transition period would unfold, and whether it would result in a more participatory and competitive political process for Mexico, was yet to be determined. Traumatic experiences during the nineteenth century, including foreign military occupations, the loss of half of the national territory to the United States, as well as the disillusion sown by a series of unconstitutional regimes, continue to have a profound impact on contemporary political culture.

24 / 26

Which of the following incidents may have led to the rift between groups within the IRP?

 

Mexicans have long attributed the origins of their political system to the Revolution of 1910-20. They cite the constitution of 1917 as the foundation of their modern political institutions and practices. Mexico's governing institutions and political culture also bear the imprint of three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. Mexicans' adherence to a highly codified civil law tradition, their acceptance of heavy state involvement in business and civic affairs, and the deference accorded the executive over other branches of government can be traced to the administrative and legal practices of the colonial period.

During the 1920s, President Elías Calles reorganized Mexican politics along corporatist lines to contain latent social conflicts. Calles expanded government bureaucracy to enable it to mediate among rival constituencies and to dispense state funds to organizations supportive of the "official" party. Calles also created umbrella organizations that lumped together disparate groups according to broad functional categories. Newly created interest groups depended heavily on the state for their financing and were required to maintain strong ties to the ruling party, the newly created Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP).

Calles's successor, Lázaro Cárdenas, revived populism as a force within the IRP by redistributing land to landless peasants via state-sponsored communal farming known as the ejido system. Cárdenas emphasized nationalism as a political force by expropriating the holdings of foreign oil corporations. By 1942, the political processes and institutions that would define Mexican politics for the next forty years were established: a strong federal government dominated by a civilian president and his loyalists within the ruling party, a symbiotic relationship between the state and the official party, a regular rotation of power among rival factions within a de facto single-party system, and a highly structured corporatist relationship between the state and government-sponsored businesses.

During the 1980s, the pattern of Mexican politics instituted by Calles and Cárdenas began to break down. Public funding for a variety of programs dried up, which led to the state's role in the economy being scaled back, and the relationships developed over four decades between government agencies and legally recognized constituent groups were weakened. An internal rift emerged between the populists and the more technocratic wing of the ruling party over the market reforms and the authoritarian nature of the IRP-dominated political system. This internal rift developed into the first major mass defection from the IRP when a key minority group broke ranks and contested the 1988 presidential election as a coalition of populist parties.

Self-preservation can help explain this breach in partisanship. IRP members’ longstanding loyalty to the party means that in the absence of disrupting forces, they can be expected to vote for that party. However, when drastic changes occur in the political and financial landscape, members are responsive to a range of pressures that can weaken their loyalty. Obvious variations occur in such factors as the charisma of the candidates, the impact of economic and domestic policy issues, foreign policy, and especially local economic changes. These factors may well have caused members to dissociate from the IRP.

Since 1987, the IRP has managed to defeat most of the serious electoral challenges to its central role in Mexican politics. However, by 2002, most believed, correctly, that the IRP-dominated political system was in an advanced state of decay and that a move to greater pluralism in organized political activity was at hand. How this transition period would unfold, and whether it would result in a more participatory and competitive political process for Mexico, was yet to be determined. Traumatic experiences during the nineteenth century, including foreign military occupations, the loss of half of the national territory to the United States, as well as the disillusion sown by a series of unconstitutional regimes, continue to have a profound impact on contemporary political culture.

25 / 26

In 2006, despite a substantial technocrat majority among the Mexican senate, leftist parties modestly increased their share of senate seats at the expense of the IRP. Given the information in the passage, this result was probably due to:

 

 

Mexicans have long attributed the origins of their political system to the Revolution of 1910-20. They cite the constitution of 1917 as the foundation of their modern political institutions and practices. Mexico's governing institutions and political culture also bear the imprint of three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. Mexicans' adherence to a highly codified civil law tradition, their acceptance of heavy state involvement in business and civic affairs, and the deference accorded the executive over other branches of government can be traced to the administrative and legal practices of the colonial period.

During the 1920s, President Elías Calles reorganized Mexican politics along corporatist lines to contain latent social conflicts. Calles expanded government bureaucracy to enable it to mediate among rival constituencies and to dispense state funds to organizations supportive of the "official" party. Calles also created umbrella organizations that lumped together disparate groups according to broad functional categories. Newly created interest groups depended heavily on the state for their financing and were required to maintain strong ties to the ruling party, the newly created Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP).

Calles's successor, Lázaro Cárdenas, revived populism as a force within the IRP by redistributing land to landless peasants via state-sponsored communal farming known as the ejido system. Cárdenas emphasized nationalism as a political force by expropriating the holdings of foreign oil corporations. By 1942, the political processes and institutions that would define Mexican politics for the next forty years were established: a strong federal government dominated by a civilian president and his loyalists within the ruling party, a symbiotic relationship between the state and the official party, a regular rotation of power among rival factions within a de facto single-party system, and a highly structured corporatist relationship between the state and government-sponsored businesses.

During the 1980s, the pattern of Mexican politics instituted by Calles and Cárdenas began to break down. Public funding for a variety of programs dried up, which led to the state's role in the economy being scaled back, and the relationships developed over four decades between government agencies and legally recognized constituent groups were weakened. An internal rift emerged between the populists and the more technocratic wing of the ruling party over the market reforms and the authoritarian nature of the IRP-dominated political system. This internal rift developed into the first major mass defection from the IRP when a key minority group broke ranks and contested the 1988 presidential election as a coalition of populist parties.

Self-preservation can help explain this breach in partisanship. IRP members’ longstanding loyalty to the party means that in the absence of disrupting forces, they can be expected to vote for that party. However, when drastic changes occur in the political and financial landscape, members are responsive to a range of pressures that can weaken their loyalty. Obvious variations occur in such factors as the charisma of the candidates, the impact of economic and domestic policy issues, foreign policy, and especially local economic changes. These factors may well have caused members to dissociate from the IRP.

Since 1987, the IRP has managed to defeat most of the serious electoral challenges to its central role in Mexican politics. However, by 2002, most believed, correctly, that the IRP-dominated political system was in an advanced state of decay and that a move to greater pluralism in organized political activity was at hand. How this transition period would unfold, and whether it would result in a more participatory and competitive political process for Mexico, was yet to be determined. Traumatic experiences during the nineteenth century, including foreign military occupations, the loss of half of the national territory to the United States, as well as the disillusion sown by a series of unconstitutional regimes, continue to have a profound impact on contemporary political culture.

26 / 26

Which of the following words would the author MOST likely use to describe the establishment of the IRP as the “official” party?

 

 

Mexicans have long attributed the origins of their political system to the Revolution of 1910-20. They cite the constitution of 1917 as the foundation of their modern political institutions and practices. Mexico's governing institutions and political culture also bear the imprint of three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. Mexicans' adherence to a highly codified civil law tradition, their acceptance of heavy state involvement in business and civic affairs, and the deference accorded the executive over other branches of government can be traced to the administrative and legal practices of the colonial period.

During the 1920s, President Elías Calles reorganized Mexican politics along corporatist lines to contain latent social conflicts. Calles expanded government bureaucracy to enable it to mediate among rival constituencies and to dispense state funds to organizations supportive of the "official" party. Calles also created umbrella organizations that lumped together disparate groups according to broad functional categories. Newly created interest groups depended heavily on the state for their financing and were required to maintain strong ties to the ruling party, the newly created Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP).

Calles's successor, Lázaro Cárdenas, revived populism as a force within the IRP by redistributing land to landless peasants via state-sponsored communal farming known as the ejido system. Cárdenas emphasized nationalism as a political force by expropriating the holdings of foreign oil corporations. By 1942, the political processes and institutions that would define Mexican politics for the next forty years were established: a strong federal government dominated by a civilian president and his loyalists within the ruling party, a symbiotic relationship between the state and the official party, a regular rotation of power among rival factions within a de facto single-party system, and a highly structured corporatist relationship between the state and government-sponsored businesses.

During the 1980s, the pattern of Mexican politics instituted by Calles and Cárdenas began to break down. Public funding for a variety of programs dried up, which led to the state's role in the economy being scaled back, and the relationships developed over four decades between government agencies and legally recognized constituent groups were weakened. An internal rift emerged between the populists and the more technocratic wing of the ruling party over the market reforms and the authoritarian nature of the IRP-dominated political system. This internal rift developed into the first major mass defection from the IRP when a key minority group broke ranks and contested the 1988 presidential election as a coalition of populist parties.

Self-preservation can help explain this breach in partisanship. IRP members’ longstanding loyalty to the party means that in the absence of disrupting forces, they can be expected to vote for that party. However, when drastic changes occur in the political and financial landscape, members are responsive to a range of pressures that can weaken their loyalty. Obvious variations occur in such factors as the charisma of the candidates, the impact of economic and domestic policy issues, foreign policy, and especially local economic changes. These factors may well have caused members to dissociate from the IRP.

Since 1987, the IRP has managed to defeat most of the serious electoral challenges to its central role in Mexican politics. However, by 2002, most believed, correctly, that the IRP-dominated political system was in an advanced state of decay and that a move to greater pluralism in organized political activity was at hand. How this transition period would unfold, and whether it would result in a more participatory and competitive political process for Mexico, was yet to be determined. Traumatic experiences during the nineteenth century, including foreign military occupations, the loss of half of the national territory to the United States, as well as the disillusion sown by a series of unconstitutional regimes, continue to have a profound impact on contemporary political culture.

Your score is

Follow us on socials!

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter
0%

More Quizzes

MCAT - Diagnostic Test - Biology Section

Take Quiz

TUTORONE MCAT Diagnostic Test - Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills

Take Quiz

SAT Word In Context (Easy) - English - Real Collegeboard Questions

Take Quiz

SAT Quadratic Equations Mastery Quiz (Hard)

Take Quiz

Molar Calculations with Reactions Quiz + Explanations

Take Quiz

Quadratic Functions and Projectile Motion (Medium) - SAT Physics Practice Questions

Take Quiz

Advanced Quadratic Functions Quiz (Medium) - SAT Physics Practice Problems

Take Quiz

SAT Boundaries (Medium) - English – Real Collegeboard Practice Questions with Answers and Explanations

Take Quiz