MCAT verbal test (14)

In paragraph two, the author discusses the value of racial pride, but ultimately rejects it because it includes negative possibilities such as a manifestation in racial kinship in which

MCAT Section Tests

Dear Future Doctor,

The following Section Test and explanations should be used to practice and to assess your mastery of critical thinking in each of the section areas Topics are confluent and are not necessarily in any specific order or fixed proportion This is the level of integration in your preparation that collects what you have learned in the Kaplan classroom and synthesizes your knowledge with your critical thinking Simply completing the tests is inadequate; a solid understanding of your performance through your Score Reports and the explanations is necessary to diagnose your specific weaknesses and address them before Test Day

All rights are reserved pursuant to the copyright laws and the contract clause in your enrollment agreement and as printed below Misdemeanor and felony infractions can severely limit your ability to be accepted to a medical program and a conviction can result in the removal of a medical license We offer this material for your practice in your own home as a courtesy and privilege Practice today so that you can perform on test day; this material was designed to give you every advantage on the MCAT and we wish you the best of luck in your preparation

Sincerely,

Albert Chen

Executive Director, Pre-Health Research and Development

Kaplan Test Prep

© 2003 Kaplan, Inc

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by Photostat, microfilm, xerography or any other means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system, electronic

or mechanical without the written permission of Kaplan, Inc This book may not be duplicated,

distributed or resold, pursuant to the terms of your Kaplan Enrollment Agreement

ANSWER KEY:

1 C 11 B 21 B 31 D 41 A 51 C

2 B 12 D 22 C 32 D 42 B 52 B

3 D 13 B 23 A 33 C 43 B 53 A

4 B 14 A 24 B 34 C 44 B 54 C

5 A 15 C 25 B 35 A 45 B 55 D

6 C 16 A 26 C 36 D 46 A 56 C

7 B 17 D 27 B 37 B 47 B 57 B

8 A 18 D 28 B 38 D 48 B 58 B

9 B 19 A 29 A 39 C 49 B 59 A

10 B 20 A 30 C 40 D 50 D 60 D

“Test 7 Transcript”

VERBAL REASONING TEST 7 EXPLANATIONS

Passage I (Questions 1-8)

Topic and Scope: This passage focuses on the topic of euthanasia, or mercy killing The scope entails the discussion

of different arguments concerning mercy killing

Paragraph Structure: In the introductory paragraph, the author describes the paradox of physicians who “believe” in

mercy killing but are unwilling to partake in mercy killing This paragraph also introduces the idea that mercy killing taints the healing image most physicians want to portray

The next paragraph discusses the idea of painful death and physician involvement in capital punishment Some physicians express objection to involvement with capital punishment due to the pain sometimes experienced by lengthy deaths The next paragraph introduces the concept of “designated killers” and whether or not they should be physicians or

“mere technicians.” The fourth paragraph quotes a NEJM editor’s view that mercy killing may bring the end of good

patient care

The final paragraph defines two schools of thought regarding those physicians who are in favor of euthanasia who will not perform it Some believe these physicians to be hypocritical while others see nothing wrong with this stance Finally, the passage concludes, based on Milgram’s studies, that humans in general are reluctant “to personally inflict death.”

Questions:

1 (C)

The question asks for the overriding theme, or main idea, of the passage (A) is only discussed to illustrate physician’s worries over the tainted image associated with mercy killing (B) is an opinion of one source quoted by the author (D) is only partially correct, in that the audience for this argument is unknown and is never discussed Thus, (C) best captures the main purpose of this passage—to discuss different viewpoints about the controversial issue of euthanasia

2 (B)

(B) sums up the reasoning behind the creation of “designated killers”: Doctors should keep their image as healer pure

by distancing themselves from such tarnishing acts as mercy killing

(A) is incorrect because it would be only true of those doctors who wish to administer mercy killings themselves (C)

is incorrect in that it assumes all doctors have voiced an opinion here on capital punishment (the topic is only discussed in general in paragraph five) Lastly, (D) is not true of those favoring “designated killers”: it is true of those who oppose their creation

3 (D)

This question requires that you understand the argument of those who are against physicians performing euthanasia (D) would disrupt the patient-doctor trust that both schools of thought agree is important

(A) is relevant to the discourse, but does not provide a reason why doctors should not be responsible for performing the act (B) is incorrect because it supports the argument against “designated killers” performing mercy killings (C) is a possible outcome of the approval of euthanasia, but not an argument against it

4 (B)

No mention is made of formalized widespread debate, only widespread opinion Thus, the passage offers no supporting evidence for the statement in (B)

(A) is supported in the first paragraph by the sentence that state 60% of American physicians favor euthanasia This leads us to believe that the other 40% either are against euthanasia or have no opinion on the issue (C) is also supported in the first paragraph as the act of euthanasia “radically conflicts” with the mission of physician as healer (D) is reinforced

by paragraphs four and five: Dr Angell of NEJM is against euthanasia and feels doctors in favor of euthanasia who are

unwilling to perform it are hypocritical

5 (A)

As suggested by Dr Angell of NEJM (a primary opponent to euthanasia), mercy killing may lead to the end of a

“continuum of good patient care,” regardless if it is performed by a “designated killer.”

While (D) is contended in the passage, it is not an opinion proffered by someone opposed to the act of euthanasia—it

is given by the author, who remains neutral throughout the passage (B) is considered a positive result of the use of

“designated killers.” (C) goes beyond the scope of the passage “Painful, lingering deaths” are discussed in regard to capital punishment, not “designated killers.”

6 (C)

The passage implies that when doctors can guarantee a pain-free death—without qualification as to who would be the mediator of the death—that patient-doctor relationships may improve Therefore, some physicians (those not involved in mercy killings) would be more trusted by their patients

(A) To the contrary, the NEJM does not condone the practice of mercy killing nor the idea of “designated killers.” Rather, NEJM disapproves of any form of euthanasia (B) is not supported by the passage There is no reason to believe

that there would be a great increase in the number of physicians who would want to be mercy killers even if the AMA adopted the use of “designated killers.” Nor is there any reason to believe that more physicians would want to be involved with capital punishment deaths Thus, (D) is incorrect

7 (B)

One concern raised by those who oppose designated killers is that “mere technicians” would be in charge of the killings The assumption of the argument in paragraph three is that designated killers would not be trained physicians and would have little medical training (indicated by the adjective “mere”) (A) is incidental to the discussion; (C) and (D) are neither discussed nor assumed in the passage

8 (A)

The first paragraph describes this particular aspect of the main idea, in terms of the paradox of physician-endorsed euthanasia Paragraphs four and five also discuss in further detail the paradox of supporting euthanasia with an unwillingness to perform it (B) is not a paradox, merely a statement that may be true, as are (C) and (D)

Passage II (Questions 9-13)

Topic and Scope: The effect of the bubonic plagues of the 1300s on the farming economy of England

Paragraph Structure: The first paragraph describes the escalation of plague across England and its gradual

disappearance Paragraph two illustrates the sociological change in family life and population brought on by mass death The final paragraphs estimate the effect of the plague and argue how it fundamentally changed the farming economy

Questions:

9 (B)

This is a straightforward detail question—the conditions that enforced high farming among the peasantry are discussed

in paragraph three (B) is not mentioned as a factor that contributed to high farming—it is discussed entirely as a factor in high farming’s downfall

In paragraph three, (A), (C), and (D) are discussed as the constituting factors for high farming

10 (B)

The first paragraph states that the plague attacked along main communication routes and in London and other towns for three hundred years more, thus to about 1675

(A) is negated directly in paragraph four The Statute was in fact useless in the long run (C) is negated in paragraph three—the author notes that, with a declining population, the demand for food was less (D) is negated in paragraph four The author states that peasants often walked away from land commitments

11 (B)

The passage states in the second paragraph that stalled population re-growth was caused by high mortality in young people

(A) is incorrect Although plague was noted in England for more than 300 years, the author implies that the greatest impact on population occurred in the latter half of the 1300s (C) is incorrect because the landholdings could not be filled without more workers (D) is incorrect because the Statute’s effects are discussed in the passage as being negligible

12 (D)

In paragraph three the author argues that the relationship between landowners and peasants was quickly altered; this affected not only the profits made, but also the employability of workers who migrated form farm to farm Thus the practice of high farming is reasoned to have ended soon after

(A) is incorrect In fact the reverse was true after the plagues: there were fallow lands and less demand for food (B) is incorrect, as it is discussed only as a supporting point for the decreased profitability of farming after the plague (C) is incorrect because the Statute of Laborers is said to have had little effect

13 (B)

The question asks which choice would make the central argument—that the plagues gutted the English practice of high farming—incorrect B is the most substantial response: in paragraph four, the author states that farming no longer brought high profits If in fact it did, then the contention that the plague decimated rural farming practices would be incorrect (A) may be correct but still occurred three decades prior to the plague (C) would negate the author’s supporting argument that the plague took away much of the available work force (D) is incorrect because the Statue of Laborers, even if strictly enforced, would not necessarily disprove that the plague brought an end to the practice of high farming

Passage III (Questions 14-19)

Topic and Scope: The orbit of Venus; specifically, the portion of its path which can be observed by the human eye

and which is most commonly known as the “evening star.”

Paragraph Structure: The beginning of this passage may lead the reader into believing that this is a humanities

passage However, the reader quickly learns that the passage delves into the astronomical details of the Venusian planetary orbit

The second paragraph describes the appearance of Venus in the evening sky, particularly, that it is “strangely bright.” Paragraph three addresses the difficulties of understanding the complex motions of the stars in the night sky The fourth paragraph describes, in detail, Venus’s orbit toward and away from Earth and when this occurs

In conclusion, paragraph five indicates that Venus, also called Hesperus, is waning (at the time the passage was written) and will return to its present position in December

Questions:

14 (A)

The statement immediately after the phrase in question implies that, like Ptolemy, people on Earth see the stars rising and setting around themselves while “the earth remains fixed beneath our feet.” In the same paragraph, the author notes that, due to “unimaginable calculus,” it is “impossible” to discern the motions of the stars in the sky

(B) distorts the information presented in paragraph three—the author does not imply that having as much knowledge

as Ptolemy would help us to understand the complexities of celestial motion If anything, he does the opposite (Ptolemy had a very geocentric point of view.) (C) The passage does not specifically address the field of astronomy and what can be gained from its study, nor does this statement have anything to do with the phrase in question (D) may be true, but has nothing to do with the phrase in question

Strategy Point: Use line references to find the exact location of the material in question Look for contextual clues before and after the quote to determine the correct answer

15 (C)

The author of the passage suggests that most of us on Earth would have a difficult time understanding the complexity

of celestial motions without astute astronomical skills Yet, the brightness of Venus does not prevent us from viewing it and enjoying its presence in the evening sky

(A) The author does not specifically address the appearance of Venus in the night sky in terms of years (B) To the contrary—paragraph four states that the planet is not visible between May and late July (D) goes beyond the scope of the passage, the author does not address or suggest any form of environmental clean-up efforts

16 (A)

Paragraph four notes, “When Venus moves toward Earth it is the evening star.”

(B) To the contrary, when Venus moves away from Earth, it will be the morning star (C) To the contrary, when Venus passes between the sun and Earth, it will be invisible to the human eye (D) The passage does not mention the sun’s brightness as being a factor in the visibility or invisibility of Venus to the human eye when Venus appears as the evening star—only during the transitional period in which Venus passes between the sun and the Earth In addition, the use of telescopes is not mentioned in the passage

17 (D)

The passage does not lead the reader to believe that the night sky is stationary Instead, it is composed of “interfering rotations” and “intersecting gravities,” implying that there is quite a bit of motion

(A) In paragraph three, the night sky is described as the “simplest of celestial motions—the pivoting of constellations.” (B) The introductory paragraph describes the night sky as a “faded metaphor, the shopworn verse of an outdated love song.” (C) Paragraph four describes the night sky as “the ceiling of a celestial waiting room.”

18 (D)

The introductory paragraph contends that, in Manhattan, it is possible to observe Venus in the evening descending in the West

(A) The passage proposes the Venus is the evening star during the winter and spring months (B) Paragraph three notes that Venus is one of the points of light that surround the North Star (C) Paragraph four states that in late July, Venus will be observed in the sky as it moves away from Earth Thus, all these statements are true and are Therefore, not the correct answer choice

19 (A)

As Hesperus, or Venus, passes between the sun and Earth, it will be invisible to the human eye Thus, the statement in (A) is untrue and would not be a reason for Hesperus to be called the evening star

(B) and (C) are stated in paragraph four (D) is stated in paragraph two

Passage IV (Questions 20-26)

Topic and Scope: The rejection of racial pride and kinship in favor of being able to shape one’s identity and

relationships without the constraints of loyalties to tradition, culture, race, etc

Paragraph Structure: Paragraph one presents that author’s opposition to the concept of racial pride Specifically, he

indicates that his pride in himself comes from his own accomplishments, not from the race, gender, or socio-economic status with which he was born

In paragraph two, the author discusses the value of racial pride, but ultimately rejects it because it includes negative possibilities such as a manifestation in racial kinship in which some people are valued over others based upon race

In paragraph three, the author flatly rejects the notion of racial kinship in order to be free to take on “the unencumbered self.” The remainder of paragraph three describes the “unencumbered self,” which is depicted in the work

of Michael Sandel as an identity that is free from the ties of culture, tradition, social status, etc., to rule itself and to decide its own loyalties In addition, this paragraph reveals Sandel’s belief that the unencumbered self is an illusion, and that

those loyalties that we are born with or that we don’t choose for ourselves are crucial to who we are and how we understand ourselves

Finally, in paragraph four, the author opposes Sandel’s belief that the unencumbered self is an illusion, and indicates that Sandel has privileged connections to the past (e.g., traditions, customs, etc.) to such a great degree that he leaves no room for the individual to determine his or her own destiny

The Big Picture: This is a tough passage, filled with academic jargon and abstract conceptions of self, identity, and community Try to connect these conceptions with real issues in your mind as you read (e.g., to certain groups, events, or individuals) so that you can begin to understand more literally the author’s recommendations for how people should form relationships with one another, how they should judge each other, and how they should regard themselves

Questions:

20 (A)

One of the central themes of this article is the opposition of racial pride/kinship with independent individualism The author argues that holding racial pride and kinship involves defining one’s goals and relationships in terms of one’s race

He rejects such pride and kinship by supporting a pride in individual (as opposed to existing and historical) accomplishments (paragraph one) and by upholding a model of unencumbered individualism wherein the individual is free

to select his or her own relationships and goals (paragraph three)

(B) The author does focus upon the “unencumbered self,” YET he strongly disagrees with Sandel’s position on this type of self Sandel regards a yearning for the unencumbered self as a negative desire, “a manifestation of a shallow liberalism that ‘cannot account for certain moral and political obligations that we commonly recognize, even prize” The author, on the other hand, states in paragraph three that he wants to embrace this kind of self Thus, the author certainly does not find validity in Sandel’s position on the unencumbered self

(C) The author correlates the rejection of racial kinship with freedom in paragraph three when he explains that he rejects racial kinship in order to be an unencumbered individual free from the ties of custom or tradition YET, the author never indicates that such freedom automatically results in great accomplishment He quotes Michael Sandel in the same paragraph as stating that the “unencumbered” self is “installed as sovereign, cast as the author of the only obligations that constrain.” Thus, the unencumbered individual rules himself and is, by implication, free to author his or her own success

OR failure

(D) The author does discuss individual consciousness in paragraph one (in terms of pride in personal accomplishment) and in paragraph three (in terms of ability to choose one’s own loyalties) Yet, while he notes the burdened and potentially prejudicial nature of racial kinship, he never indicates that individuals who embrace racial kinship form one single group consciousness

21 (B)

In paragraph four, the author states that Sandel invests “unchosen attachments” (e.g., feelings of loyalty and solidarity that people don’t choose for themselves but which they still value) with moral weight The author concludes that he is not prepared to believe that these attachments should be accorded such weight, especially as he regards them as often representing “mere prejudice or superstition” (paragraph four) Hence, the author perceives Sandel as investing inherited interpersonal connections with a moral force that cannot be justified

(A) This statement is contrary to what the author believes The author does believe that these connections are given a weight (if not too much weight) that they should not carry, as shown in the description to answer choice “B.”

(C) First of all, while the author believes that Sandel “privileges” these connections and gives them too much deference (paragraph four), he never states that Sandel feels an actual reverence for them Secondly, Sandel does not accept these relationships blindly or unquestioningly As shown in the author’s quotations of Sandel’s work in paragraph three, there is much analysis behind Sandel’s opinion on inherited relationships and ties

(D) The author never criticizes Sandel for a cursory treatment of individuals’ inherited interpersonal relationships In fact, in paragraph three, the author quotes Sandel’s opinions on this subject at length (implying that Sandel’s treatment is anything but cursory) and indicates in paragraph four that he admires Sandel’s work and has “learned much from it.”

Strategy: Pay close attention to wording Question twenty-five asks about the “encumbered” self, not the

“unencumbered” self that is discussed in the passage

22 (C)

The encumbered self is defined in large part by its connections and relationships to existing cultures, traditions, or status that it has inherited (and thus, has not chosen for itself) As Sandel states at the end of paragraph three, these

attachments “influence our identity.” On the other hand, the unencumbered self is described as “sovereign the author of the only obligations that constrain.” The unencumbered self shapes its relationships and identity; it is the sum of its own deeds and actions Thus, it can be deduced that the encumbered self is not the product of independent action and

accomplishment

(A) In paragraph four, the author indicates that feelings of attachment based upon tradition, culture, etc (those feelings held by “encumbered” selves), are often “a hangover of the childhood socialization from which many people never recover.” Hence, it can be inferred that “encumbered” individuals have maintained interpersonal relationships established

in their childhood

(B) In paragraph three, the author quotes Sandel as defining the unencumbered self as free from inherited goals and relationships; free from “the sanctions of custom and tradition and inherited status.” Thus, it is fair to extend that the identity of the “encumbered” individual, on the flip side, will be influenced by unchosen, history-based loyalties and ties Sandel says as much in paragraph three when he notes that “inherited” loyalties and responsibilities “influence our identity.”

(D) That those who embrace racial kinship are “encumbered selves” (according to the author) is apparent in the opening of paragraph three The author indicates: “I reject the notion of racial kinship I do so in order to avoid its burdens and to be free to claim what Michael Sandel labels ‘the unencumbered self.’” As the rejection of racial kinship allows for the adoption of an unencumbered self, it follows that the embrace of racial kinship (in the author’s view) is equated with having an encumbered self Certainly, it makes sense within the argument of the passage that in embracing racial kinship one is encumbered with ties to others of one’s race

23 (A)

“Historical determinism” implies that present and future events will be predetermined by history Thus, the author

suggests that Sandel’s deference to tradition works against or undermines the belief that individuals can determine the

future or the events of their lives

(B) The author himself never states that history has this influence; rather, he observes Sandel’s belief in history’s ability to shape the future and the actions of men

(C) The author never directly correlates the respect of tradition with a harmful effect Note here the word respect, which could involve simply recognizing the past accomplishments of certain traditions, as opposed to defining one’s self and pride in one’s self because of connections to these traditions The author indicates that Sandel does not just respect tradition, he defers or submits to it as having the power to shape the present and future

(D) There is a distinction between the author’s indication that Sandel “defers” to tradition and the concept of paying homage to people or events of significance in the past Deference implies a deep tie and submission to tradition, YET honoring an event or person does not necessarily mean that one is connected to that person or event

24 (B)

The author distinctly notes at the beginning of paragraph one that he rejects the concept of racial pride and at the opening of paragraph three that he rejects “the notion of racial kinship.” Thus, he would most likely find the Million Man March, an event in which men gathered because of shared race and a pride in this race and not necessarily because they knew each other, antithetical to his stance on racial kinship and pride

(A) There is no indication that because he rejects racial pride and racial kinship, the author would tolerate students being afforded different or prejudicial treatment by their instructors In fact, as the author feels that racial kinship involves valuing some individuals over others because of race (paragraph two), his rejection of racial kinship (according to his definition) would involve a rejection of the unequal treatment of people according to race

(C) Again, as the author rejects the notion of valuing one race over another under the grounds of racial kinship, he would most likely not have trouble with hospital emergency rooms refusing to distinguish between people based upon ability to pay

(D) As he rejects the notion of valuing one race over another within the dictates of racial kinship, the author (an African-American) would probably not find the recognition of a white abolitionist (rather than only African-American leaders) in the fight against slavery to be problematic

25 (B)

The strength of the author’s disagreement is apparent throughout paragraph four His criticism of Sandel’s position is quite negative He observes a “major weakness” in Sandel’s argument, indicates that Sandel’s “deference to tradition lapses into historical determinism,” and reflects that the feelings of attachment that Sandel values “often represent mere prejudice or superstition.” Yet, the author tempers his strong disagreement by paying some deference to Sandel’s work in general First of all, he actually embraces the model of the unencumbered self that Sandel describes (paragraph three) Second of all, he refers to Sandel as a “distinguished political theorist” (paragraph three) Third, he admits that he admires Sandel’s work and has learned from it (paragraph four)

(A) While the author’s consideration of Sandel’s argument is certainly academic in the sense that it analyzes and critiques specific components, the author can not be perceived as impersonal First of all, he writes in the first person throughout his critique Second of all, he indicates that he himself would like to embrace the model of unencumbered identity that Sandel faults (paragraph three)

(C) Although the author certainly disagrees strongly with Sandel’s position, his detailed presentation of Sandel’s side

of the argument (paragraph three) and his indication that “I admire Sandel’s work and have learned much from it” (paragraph four) are clear reasons why the author’s attitude is not hostile

(D) One of Webster’s definitions for “dismissive” is “to bar from serious thought or consideration.” While the author disagrees with Sandel’s position on the unencumbered self (paragraph four), he explains Sandel’s argument in detail (paragraph three) and counters Sandel in detail, as well (paragraph four) In addition, the author indicates that he admires Sandel’s work, that Sandel is distinguished in his field, and that he has learned much from him Thus, the author’s careful (albeit negative) treatment of Sandel’s position can not be regarded as dismissive

26 (C)

In paragraph one, the author defines “what should properly be the object of pride for an individual” as one’s personal accomplishments, not the attributes that one inherits This definition introduces the basis for the author’s rejection of racial solidarity in paragraphs two and three Specifically, the author rejects racial solidarity in part because it values the attributes that others have inherited (e.g., their race) and not necessarily their personal accomplishments

(A) Actually, the author quotes Frederick Douglass in paragraph one as a means of backing up his own argument on racial pride Besides, this is a side reference, not deep enough to satisfy the question stem

(B) The author does not want to undermine the model of the “unencumbered self”; in fact, he wishes to embrace it (paragraph three) In addition, the author’s definition of the true object of pride (one’s own accomplishments) accords well with the idea of the unencumbered self, which seeks to be sovereign of its self and the author of its own actions and ties (D) Actually, the author does manifest the feeling that Sandel labels as shallow liberalism In paragraph three, the author delineates Sandel’s belief that a yearning for the unencumbered self is a manifestation of shallow liberalism Thus,

as the author wishes to assume the unencumbered self (paragraph three), it is clear that he manifests feelings that Sandel would designate as shallow liberalism In the end, then, there is no reason why the author would attempt to ensure that his readers perceive him as feeling otherwise

In addition, it has already been established (in the response to answer choice B) that the author’s definition of the object of personal pride accords well with the longing for the unencumbered self (the feeling that Sandel labels as a manifestation of shallow liberalism)

Passage V (Questions 30-36)

Topic and Scope: The unequal treatment and harassment of women in rock and roll and the music industry

Paragraph Structure: Paragraph one discusses a resurgence in feminist thought and theory in the early 1990s

Paragraph two describes how the issue of harassment in the music industry came to light Paragraph three continues to support that argument with specific case examples Paragraph four discusses how the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame differs little from previous examples