RC Set 4 - SOLUTION

91. (E). A falsifiable idea is "one that can be shown to be false." The statement no human being lives forever can

only be shown to be false if one observes a human being that lives forever. However, this would be impossible

(because of the word forever), and thus the idea is not falsifiable. In addition, answer choices (A) through (D) are

incorrect. The statement all birds are black is falsifiable by identifying a single bird that is not black. The statement

Earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life can be proven false by finding intelligent life on any

planet in the universe except Earth. The statement It rains on Mars everyday can be proven false by observing Mars

on a single non-rainy day. The statement The sun will explode in 100,000 years can be proven false by waiting more

than 100,000 years and verifying that the sun has not exploded. Note that choices (D) and (E) seem somewhat similar

— however impractical it is to wait 100,000 years to falsify something, there is still a big difference between

"100,000 years" and "forever."

92. (B). The author states in the last paragraph that a theory that is unable to be proven true is very unlikely to be

formed. Therefore, it appears that he/she believes that "confirmability" lacks a practical application. The author states,

it is understandable that Popper does not devote that much time to the criterion of 'confirmability,' inferring that

confirmability is less important that falsifiability, not more. You can eliminate (A). Regarding (C), the author states

that a theory that is unable to be proven true is unlikely to be formed, therefore it is unlikely he/she believes that

confirmability applies to a broad range of theories. As for (D), in the first sentence of the last paragraph, the author

states that confirmability follows the same logic as falsifiability ("By that logic,…") and thus it appears he/she

believes that comfirmability is reasonable. As for (E), the author states, it is understandable that Popper does not

devote that much time to the criterion of 'confirmability'. Thus, the author is unlikely to agree that Popper should

have developed the idea of confirmability

.

93. (C). The second paragraph focuses on the significance of the two definitions of 'political', as (C) states. (A) is

incorrect because no alternative is offered in the second paragraph. (B) is incorrect because there is no "revision" —

this choice might describe the third paragraph. Similarly, in (D), there is no "exception." (E) is closer to the point of

the first paragraph.

94. (B). The author mentions the play as an example, or "illustration," of when speech is political, which is the aspect

discussed in that paragraph. (A) is incorrect, as it is used as an example, not counterpoint. (C) is wrong because the

passage does not advocate a position. (D) and (E) miss the point of the example, which is neither about universality

nor a fallacy.

95. (E). The passage states that the hegemonic model believed governments to operate exclusively through law and

the threat and enforcement of concrete punishment, such as imprisonment, monetary penalties, etc… which

legitimizes law and supports the exercise of power. (A), (B), and (C) all exemplify a using the rule of law to exact

concrete punishments. (D) does not demonstrate a clear punishment, but does represent a clear exercise of power (the

ability to censor an exhibit). Only (E) does not represent the use of law and punishment, as a coup would necessarily

not be legal.

96. (A). The answer to this type of question is always explicit in the passage. In the third paragraph, the passage cites

Hanna Pitkin: public-spirited conversation happens when citizens speak in terms of 'justice.' None of the other

choices is mentioned in this section of the passage.

97. Such a definition is not precisely wrong, but rather is outdated and falls short… (second sentence of first

paragraph). This is the only one of the four sentences in paragraphs 1 and 2 that includes an explicit criticism.

98. (B). The passage describes two different ideas, explanationism and predictionism, that have both been used to

verify or disprove different scientific theories. As for (A), the passage never states that either theory is superior to the

other. Although (C) is true, the passage only mentions the two models of the solar system as an example of the

workings of explanationism. Therefore, it cannot be the main idea of the passage. Regarding (D), the passage does not

describe what is required to posit a physical theory. As for (E), a predictionist and an explanationist will always

diverge on how to prove that a scientific theory is true, but they might still agree on whether or not the theory is

correct.

99. (E). Before citing the example of the Copernicus and Brahe models of the universe, the author states, it could be

the case that a theory predicts something and yet does not provide the best explanation of it. The author goes on

to use Copernicus and Brahe as an example, stating that both of their theories have predictive power, but obviously

Brahe's does not offer the best explanation for the workings of the solar system. As for (A), the author is actually

arguing the opposite: that predictive power alone is never enough to verify a theory. (B) does reveal that some

theories have more or less of an ad-hoc quality, but this is not the author's reason for citing this example. The main

reason must be related back to explanationism. As for (C), the example showed the opposite — both theories were

found to accurately predict future events, and thus they must have both made the same predictions for those future

events. Although it is true that the more complicated model failed (D), the author's intent was to show that an

incorrect model can still make correct predictions.

100. I and II only. The words for example at the beginning of the sentence containing the crowd analogy follow a

sentence about the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle says that fermions cannot inhabit the same fundamental

state. Electrons, which are fermions, are likened to members of a crowd in a stadium; the fact that electrons cannot

circle the nuclei of atoms in precisely the same orbits (just as crowd members cannot sit on top of one another) is a

"consequence" of the Pauli exclusion principle. Thus, the first statement is justified. These electrons must occupy

more and more distant locations; the crowd analogy certainly illustrates that behavior, so the second statement is

justified. As for the third, incorrect statement, while you do know that electrons cannot occupy the same orbits as one

another and must instead occupy more and more distant locations, you do not know that those orbits are "concentric"

or "evenly-spaced."

101. (B). The author begins by naming the two classes of subatomic particles, and then divides the remainder of the

passage into descriptions of each class and their relation to each other. Regarding (A) and (D), the author explains

both of these concepts within the passage, but it is subordinate to the main idea of describing the two types of

subatomic particles, and thus is not the primary purpose of the passage. As for (C) and (E), the author's primary

purpose in writing is not to provide examples or to argue.

102. (C). The author states that fermions, not bosons, are the constituents of ordinary matter. All other answers are

mentioned in the second paragraph of the passage.

103. (D). The passage states that Cooper pairs of electrons will flow in perfect harmony and with zero resistance

through the metal. As an example of the same phenomenon, you are told that a swirl in a cup of superfluid helium will

never dissipate. Therefore, it is correct to infer that a current through a superconducting wire will never dissipate. If

you were not certain that you could be sure of this, you can still eliminate the other choices through process of

elimination. As for (A), the passage states that an even number of fermions (which, according to the first paragraph,

include electrons, protons, and neutrons) constitute a boson, but not an odd number (1/2 integer times an odd will

not give an integer). The last paragraph states that scientists argue for the existence of skyrmions in a medium that

might permit them to be formed, implying that they have not yet been discovered, so eliminate (B). In (C), the author

states that two electrons cannot circle a nucleus in the same orbit, but they could spin in different orbits that are the

same distance from the nucleus. Finally, in (E), the author gives two examples of fermions becoming bosons at cooled

temperatures, but does not say this is the only situation in which this can occur.

104. (A). The first paragraph states that fermions obey the Pauli principle, according to which no two particles can

occupy the same fundamental state. The second paragraph states that bosons tend to bunch together in exactly the

same state. This is the opposite of (E), thus (E) is incorrect. (D) is also the opposite of what the passage claims.

Bosons have integral spin values and fermions have half-integer spin. Answer (B) is incorrect because the passage

does not discuss the total number of particle types for bosons for fermions and answer (C) is incorrect because the

passage explicitly states that both fermions and bosons can exist in groups.

105. (A). The passage states that the Pauli principle prohibits any two particles from inhabiting the same fundamental

state. Further, you know that the Pauli principle should be applied to fermions, which include electrons, protons, and

neutrons, but not bosons (from the second paragraph). Answer choice (A) discusses electrons, which are fermions,

avoiding occupation of identical energy levels, so (A) is relevant and thus the correct answer. As for (B), a charged

particle in a magnetic field neither provides the criteria for a fermion nor references inhabitance of the same state.

Answer (C) does not specify the type of particle. Answer (D) is about photons, which are stated in the passage as

bosons, to which the Pauli principle does not apply. Regarding (E), the passage explicitly states that the Higgs particle

is a boson, so the Pauli exclusion principle definitely wouldn't apply here (the beginning of the second paragraph

explains this quite clearly).

106. III only. You are told that Frey points out that humans are often intrinsically motivated, and that such

motivation explains heroism, craftsmanship, and other drives that do not fit neatly into the model of a narrowly

focused gain-seeker. The first statement is incorrect because the craftsman in question is working for money, rather

than for the inherent love of the work. The second statement is incorrect because even though the journalist may

appear to act heroically, his motivations are related to his career. The third statement is correct because the

economist in question is working without hope of monetary reward.

107. (D). (A) is incorrect because the passage never says that Homo economicus is a useful way to form mathematical

models. (B) is incorrect because the passage never says Homo economicus is a theoretically useless construction,

only that it is a problematic one. (C) is wrong because there's no reason to believe that the people who criticize the

theory don't fully understand its function. (D) is correct because the second paragraph of the passage describes

numerous problems with Homo economicus, all of which center around simplifying people's motivations and

assuming they understand more than they actually do. (E) is incorrect because the passage never says that Homo

economicus fell out of favor. You don't know that the handful of critics cited is representative of "most economists."

108. I and III only. Statement I is correct because of Veblen and Keynes, who allege that homo economicus assumes

far too great an understanding of macroeconomics on the part of humans. II is incorrect (and too extreme)

because, although Tversky says that people are unconcerned by small chances of large losses, but quite risk-averse

regarding small losses, he does not imply that there is a broader pattern. Statement III is correct because of Amartya

Sen, who says that people can and do commit to courses of action out of morality, cultural expectations, and so

forth.

109. (D). The gist of this sentence is that while scientists condemn certain practices as flawed, the methods they

themselves use are subject to many of the same flaws, according to Feyerabend. You are thus looking for a word,

synonymous with repudiate, that means to "condemn, censure," or "denounce." Decry is the right word.

110. (A). According to the passage, Feyerabend wants to demonstrate that historic instances of scientific progress

were themselves marked by these flaws, and thus should not be seen as flaws at all. To this end, he describes a

situation that any scientist would agree is an example of progress, and shows how it made use of practices that are now

condemned by scientists, including "begging the question," the practice of using a conclusion as evidence for that

same conclusion (a little bit like using a vocabulary word in the definition for that same word), and using

"propaganda." Feyerabend basically implies that scientists have a choice between throwing this out as an example of

good science or accepting these practices as part of good science. Since scientists are unlikely to say that the

introduction of heliocentrism was a bad thing, they will be forced to revise their account of what is and is not

acceptable scientific practice. Choice (B) is wrong because the point of the case study is that Galileo is a good

example of science. As for choice (C), "subjectivity" is called "seriously flawed" in the first paragraph. Choice (D) is

nonsensical — it basically says tautological reasoning is acceptable only when it's being tautological. It's certainly

not why Feyerabend makes use of a case study. (E) misses the point completely — Feyerabend is using an example

from history to defend certain ways of doing science.

111. (C). The first sentence of this paragraph defines Boal's work as a response to a culture of apathy. (A) is incorrect

— the paragraph describes a response, not an elaboration. (B) is incorrect because it is not until the last paragraph that

the author provides a rationale for the two theatres. (D) is beyond the scope of the passage. (E) is incorrect because

there is no evaluation and the styles are not contrasting.

112. (D). This is essentially a vocabulary question. "Power" is one meaning of agency, and this is the only meaning

that makes sense in the context of creating ways to free themselves. (A) and (B) are other meanings of agency that do

not make sense in context. (C) might be related to agent but has no relationship to agency or the passage here. (E) is

incorrect as it implies domination over others.

113. (E). The last paragraph defines a "spect-actor" as someone who simultaneously witnesses and creates theater.

In the second paragraph, the passage states that at image events everyone is at once theater-maker and witness. (A) is

incorrect, as theater is not mentioned. In (B), Boal specifically says that catharsis keeps people passive (also, the

audience member is not acting, which is crucial to being a "spect-actor"). (C) is incorrect and, to an extent, backwards

— the passage said that Boal found that position analogous to that of a passive audience. (D) is too broad, given the

first paragraph about traditional theater.

114. (A). At the end of the first paragraph, the author paraphrases Boal: theater etiquette creates a kind of culture of

apathy where individuals do not act communally… and remain distanced from art. (C) and (E) can be eliminated.

(B) and (D) are wrong because Boal states that traditional theater discourages political action by providing catharsis.

(A) is correct because Boal states that actors do go into the audience, so they are not prevented from doing so.

115. (D). This choice is a characteristic of an Image workshop, not a Forum workshop. In the second paragraph, the

passage states that Forum workshops begin with a narrative skit (A) then the facilitator — or mediator (E) —

encourages spectators to assume the role of the protagonist (B). Choice (C) is justified as the paragraph states that

performances do not always arrive at a satisfactory solution.

116. II only. In the third paragraph, the natural rotation of a galaxy, surrounding supernovae, and density waves

are listed as examples of the outside influence evidently required for a theoretically unstable cloud to initiate

collapse. The first statement is a trap — fusion appears in the first paragraph and the author does not suggest that it

leads to cloud contraction. (While the passage does suggest that fusion is related to supernovae and that supernovae

can contribute to cloud collapse, don't fill in the gaps yourself — the passage simply does not provide enough

information for you to infer that fusion is part of a series of events that begins cloud contraction.) The second

statement is true (realizing this requires you to match up "explosions of stars" in the answer choice with "supernovae"

in the third paragraph). The third statement is a distortion — forcing debris inward, not outward, may cause cloud

contraction to begin.

117. (D). Choice (A) is true in real life, of course, but is not mentioned in the passage. (B) refers to the molecular

clouds in the second paragraph, not to our solar system. (C) is reminiscent of this sentence in the third paragraph —

The natural rotation of a galaxy can slowly alter the structure of a cloud — which does not refer to our solar

system. Correct answer (D) reflects that for a system of planets such as our solar system to form around a star

during cloud contraction, the presence of these heavy elements in the cloud is a necessity. (You are also told that

these heavy elements make up the Earth and even human bodies — so, they sound pretty necessary!) Choice (E) gets

the story backwards — heavy elements were needed to create the solar system, not vice-versa.

118. (C). The outward thermal pressure of the constituent gases (of the molecular cloud) is what is overcome in the

process of the collapse of the cloud. This is something that inhibits, or holds back, cloud collapse.

119. III only. The Norton-Polk-Mathis House uses typical Renaissance ideals as well as materials prevalent in the

Italian Renaissance. However, the passage certainly does not say that the house itself was built in the Renaissance.

(For one, it is in San Antonio!) The first statement is not true. According to the passage, the primary purpose of the

building is "to impress," so its purpose is not primarily utilitarian. The second statement is also not true. You are told

that the house radiates an air of strength, especially when juxtaposed with the other, seemingly fragile brick and

wood homes of the neighborhood, so you definitely can infer that the house "appears stronger than other nearby

homes." The phrase "radiates an air" and the word seemingly in the passage indicate that you are talking about

appearances of strength, so the word appears in the third statement is a very good match (you would not be justified

in inferring that the other neighborhood homes are actually weak — they just look that way).