1. In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with doing which one of the following?

After thirty years of investigation into cell
genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in
the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the
development of processes, collectively known as
(5) recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA)
technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s
genetic code. The technology has created excitement
and controversy because it involves altering
DNA—which contains the building blocks of the
(10) genetic code.

Using rDNA technology, scientists can transfer
a portion of the DNA from one organism to a
single living cell of another. The scientist chemically
“snips” the DNA chain of the host cell at a
(15) predetermined point and attaches another piece of
DNA from a donor cell at that place, creating a
completely new organism.

Proponents of rDNA research and development
claim that it will allow scientists to find cures for
(20) disease and to better understand how genetic
information controls an organism’s development.
They also see many other potentially practical
benefits, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some corporations employing the new technology
(25) even claim that by the end of the century all major
diseases will be treated with drugs derived from
microorganisms created through rDNA technology.
Pharmaceutical products already developed, but
not yet marketed, indicate that these predictions
(30) may be realized.

Proponents also cite nonmedical applications
for this technology. Energy production and waste
disposal may benefit: genetically altered organisms
could convert sewage and other organic material
(35) into methane fuel. Agriculture might also take
advantage of rDNA technology to produce new
varieties of crops that resist foul weather, pests,
and the effects of poor soil.

A major concern of the critics of rDNA research
(40) is that genetically altered microorganisms might
escape from the laboratory. Because these
microorganisms are laboratory creations that, in
all probability, do not occur in nature, their
interaction with the natural world cannot be
(45) predicted with certainty. It is possible that they
could cause previously unknown perhaps incurable,
diseases. The effect of genetically altered
microorganisms on the world’s microbiological
predator-prey relationships is another potentially
(50) serious problem pointed out by the opponents of
rDNA research. Introducing a new species may
disrupt or even destroy the existing ecosystem. The
collapse of interdependent relationships among
species, extrapolated to its extreme, could eventually
(55) result in the destruction of humanity.

Opponents of rDNA technology also cite ethical
problems with it. For example, it gives scientists the
power to instantly cross evolutionary and species
boundaries that nature took millennia to establish.
(60) The implications of such power would become
particularly profound if genetic engineers were to
tinker with human genes, a practice that would
bring us one step closer to Aldous Huxley’s grim
vision in Brave New World of a totalitarian society
(65) that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles.

2. According to the passage, which one of the following is an accurate statement about research into the genetic code of cells?

After thirty years of investigation into cell
genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in
the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the
development of processes, collectively known as
(5) recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA)
technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s
genetic code. The technology has created excitement
and controversy because it involves altering
DNA—which contains the building blocks of the
(10) genetic code.

Using rDNA technology, scientists can transfer
a portion of the DNA from one organism to a
single living cell of another. The scientist chemically
“snips” the DNA chain of the host cell at a
(15) predetermined point and attaches another piece of
DNA from a donor cell at that place, creating a
completely new organism.

Proponents of rDNA research and development
claim that it will allow scientists to find cures for
(20) disease and to better understand how genetic
information controls an organism’s development.
They also see many other potentially practical
benefits, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some corporations employing the new technology
(25) even claim that by the end of the century all major
diseases will be treated with drugs derived from
microorganisms created through rDNA technology.
Pharmaceutical products already developed, but
not yet marketed, indicate that these predictions
(30) may be realized.

Proponents also cite nonmedical applications
for this technology. Energy production and waste
disposal may benefit: genetically altered organisms
could convert sewage and other organic material
(35) into methane fuel. Agriculture might also take
advantage of rDNA technology to produce new
varieties of crops that resist foul weather, pests,
and the effects of poor soil.

A major concern of the critics of rDNA research
(40) is that genetically altered microorganisms might
escape from the laboratory. Because these
microorganisms are laboratory creations that, in
all probability, do not occur in nature, their
interaction with the natural world cannot be
(45) predicted with certainty. It is possible that they
could cause previously unknown perhaps incurable,
diseases. The effect of genetically altered
microorganisms on the world’s microbiological
predator-prey relationships is another potentially
(50) serious problem pointed out by the opponents of
rDNA research. Introducing a new species may
disrupt or even destroy the existing ecosystem. The
collapse of interdependent relationships among
species, extrapolated to its extreme, could eventually
(55) result in the destruction of humanity.

Opponents of rDNA technology also cite ethical
problems with it. For example, it gives scientists the
power to instantly cross evolutionary and species
boundaries that nature took millennia to establish.
(60) The implications of such power would become
particularly profound if genetic engineers were to
tinker with human genes, a practice that would
bring us one step closer to Aldous Huxley’s grim
vision in Brave New World of a totalitarian society
(65) that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles.

3. The potential benefits of rDNA technology referred to in the passage include all of the following EXCEPT

After thirty years of investigation into cell
genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in
the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the
development of processes, collectively known as
(5) recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA)
technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s
genetic code. The technology has created excitement
and controversy because it involves altering
DNA—which contains the building blocks of the
(10) genetic code.

Using rDNA technology, scientists can transfer
a portion of the DNA from one organism to a
single living cell of another. The scientist chemically
“snips” the DNA chain of the host cell at a
(15) predetermined point and attaches another piece of
DNA from a donor cell at that place, creating a
completely new organism.

Proponents of rDNA research and development
claim that it will allow scientists to find cures for
(20) disease and to better understand how genetic
information controls an organism’s development.
They also see many other potentially practical
benefits, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some corporations employing the new technology
(25) even claim that by the end of the century all major
diseases will be treated with drugs derived from
microorganisms created through rDNA technology.
Pharmaceutical products already developed, but
not yet marketed, indicate that these predictions
(30) may be realized.

Proponents also cite nonmedical applications
for this technology. Energy production and waste
disposal may benefit: genetically altered organisms
could convert sewage and other organic material
(35) into methane fuel. Agriculture might also take
advantage of rDNA technology to produce new
varieties of crops that resist foul weather, pests,
and the effects of poor soil.

A major concern of the critics of rDNA research
(40) is that genetically altered microorganisms might
escape from the laboratory. Because these
microorganisms are laboratory creations that, in
all probability, do not occur in nature, their
interaction with the natural world cannot be
(45) predicted with certainty. It is possible that they
could cause previously unknown perhaps incurable,
diseases. The effect of genetically altered
microorganisms on the world’s microbiological
predator-prey relationships is another potentially
(50) serious problem pointed out by the opponents of
rDNA research. Introducing a new species may
disrupt or even destroy the existing ecosystem. The
collapse of interdependent relationships among
species, extrapolated to its extreme, could eventually
(55) result in the destruction of humanity.

Opponents of rDNA technology also cite ethical
problems with it. For example, it gives scientists the
power to instantly cross evolutionary and species
boundaries that nature took millennia to establish.
(60) The implications of such power would become
particularly profound if genetic engineers were to
tinker with human genes, a practice that would
bring us one step closer to Aldous Huxley’s grim
vision in Brave New World of a totalitarian society
(65) that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles.

4. Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken an argument of opponents of rDNA technology?

After thirty years of investigation into cell
genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in
the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the
development of processes, collectively known as
(5) recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA)
technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s
genetic code. The technology has created excitement
and controversy because it involves altering
DNA—which contains the building blocks of the
(10) genetic code.

Using rDNA technology, scientists can transfer
a portion of the DNA from one organism to a
single living cell of another. The scientist chemically
“snips” the DNA chain of the host cell at a
(15) predetermined point and attaches another piece of
DNA from a donor cell at that place, creating a
completely new organism.

Proponents of rDNA research and development
claim that it will allow scientists to find cures for
(20) disease and to better understand how genetic
information controls an organism’s development.
They also see many other potentially practical
benefits, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some corporations employing the new technology
(25) even claim that by the end of the century all major
diseases will be treated with drugs derived from
microorganisms created through rDNA technology.
Pharmaceutical products already developed, but
not yet marketed, indicate that these predictions
(30) may be realized.

Proponents also cite nonmedical applications
for this technology. Energy production and waste
disposal may benefit: genetically altered organisms
could convert sewage and other organic material
(35) into methane fuel. Agriculture might also take
advantage of rDNA technology to produce new
varieties of crops that resist foul weather, pests,
and the effects of poor soil.

A major concern of the critics of rDNA research
(40) is that genetically altered microorganisms might
escape from the laboratory. Because these
microorganisms are laboratory creations that, in
all probability, do not occur in nature, their
interaction with the natural world cannot be
(45) predicted with certainty. It is possible that they
could cause previously unknown perhaps incurable,
diseases. The effect of genetically altered
microorganisms on the world’s microbiological
predator-prey relationships is another potentially
(50) serious problem pointed out by the opponents of
rDNA research. Introducing a new species may
disrupt or even destroy the existing ecosystem. The
collapse of interdependent relationships among
species, extrapolated to its extreme, could eventually
(55) result in the destruction of humanity.

Opponents of rDNA technology also cite ethical
problems with it. For example, it gives scientists the
power to instantly cross evolutionary and species
boundaries that nature took millennia to establish.
(60) The implications of such power would become
particularly profound if genetic engineers were to
tinker with human genes, a practice that would
bring us one step closer to Aldous Huxley’s grim
vision in Brave New World of a totalitarian society
(65) that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles.

5. The author’s reference in the last sentence of the passage to a society that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles serves to

After thirty years of investigation into cell
genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in
the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the
development of processes, collectively known as
(5) recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA)
technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s
genetic code. The technology has created excitement
and controversy because it involves altering
DNA—which contains the building blocks of the
(10) genetic code.

Using rDNA technology, scientists can transfer
a portion of the DNA from one organism to a
single living cell of another. The scientist chemically
“snips” the DNA chain of the host cell at a
(15) predetermined point and attaches another piece of
DNA from a donor cell at that place, creating a
completely new organism.

Proponents of rDNA research and development
claim that it will allow scientists to find cures for
(20) disease and to better understand how genetic
information controls an organism’s development.
They also see many other potentially practical
benefits, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some corporations employing the new technology
(25) even claim that by the end of the century all major
diseases will be treated with drugs derived from
microorganisms created through rDNA technology.
Pharmaceutical products already developed, but
not yet marketed, indicate that these predictions
(30) may be realized.

Proponents also cite nonmedical applications
for this technology. Energy production and waste
disposal may benefit: genetically altered organisms
could convert sewage and other organic material
(35) into methane fuel. Agriculture might also take
advantage of rDNA technology to produce new
varieties of crops that resist foul weather, pests,
and the effects of poor soil.

A major concern of the critics of rDNA research
(40) is that genetically altered microorganisms might
escape from the laboratory. Because these
microorganisms are laboratory creations that, in
all probability, do not occur in nature, their
interaction with the natural world cannot be
(45) predicted with certainty. It is possible that they
could cause previously unknown perhaps incurable,
diseases. The effect of genetically altered
microorganisms on the world’s microbiological
predator-prey relationships is another potentially
(50) serious problem pointed out by the opponents of
rDNA research. Introducing a new species may
disrupt or even destroy the existing ecosystem. The
collapse of interdependent relationships among
species, extrapolated to its extreme, could eventually
(55) result in the destruction of humanity.

Opponents of rDNA technology also cite ethical
problems with it. For example, it gives scientists the
power to instantly cross evolutionary and species
boundaries that nature took millennia to establish.
(60) The implications of such power would become
particularly profound if genetic engineers were to
tinker with human genes, a practice that would
bring us one step closer to Aldous Huxley’s grim
vision in Brave New World of a totalitarian society
(65) that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles.

6. Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen an argument of the opponents of rDNA technology?

After thirty years of investigation into cell
genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in
the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the
development of processes, collectively known as
(5) recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA)
technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s
genetic code. The technology has created excitement
and controversy because it involves altering
DNA—which contains the building blocks of the
(10) genetic code.

Using rDNA technology, scientists can transfer
a portion of the DNA from one organism to a
single living cell of another. The scientist chemically
“snips” the DNA chain of the host cell at a
(15) predetermined point and attaches another piece of
DNA from a donor cell at that place, creating a
completely new organism.

Proponents of rDNA research and development
claim that it will allow scientists to find cures for
(20) disease and to better understand how genetic
information controls an organism’s development.
They also see many other potentially practical
benefits, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some corporations employing the new technology
(25) even claim that by the end of the century all major
diseases will be treated with drugs derived from
microorganisms created through rDNA technology.
Pharmaceutical products already developed, but
not yet marketed, indicate that these predictions
(30) may be realized.

Proponents also cite nonmedical applications
for this technology. Energy production and waste
disposal may benefit: genetically altered organisms
could convert sewage and other organic material
(35) into methane fuel. Agriculture might also take
advantage of rDNA technology to produce new
varieties of crops that resist foul weather, pests,
and the effects of poor soil.

A major concern of the critics of rDNA research
(40) is that genetically altered microorganisms might
escape from the laboratory. Because these
microorganisms are laboratory creations that, in
all probability, do not occur in nature, their
interaction with the natural world cannot be
(45) predicted with certainty. It is possible that they
could cause previously unknown perhaps incurable,
diseases. The effect of genetically altered
microorganisms on the world’s microbiological
predator-prey relationships is another potentially
(50) serious problem pointed out by the opponents of
rDNA research. Introducing a new species may
disrupt or even destroy the existing ecosystem. The
collapse of interdependent relationships among
species, extrapolated to its extreme, could eventually
(55) result in the destruction of humanity.

Opponents of rDNA technology also cite ethical
problems with it. For example, it gives scientists the
power to instantly cross evolutionary and species
boundaries that nature took millennia to establish.
(60) The implications of such power would become
particularly profound if genetic engineers were to
tinker with human genes, a practice that would
bring us one step closer to Aldous Huxley’s grim
vision in Brave New World of a totalitarian society
(65) that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles.

7. Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the passage?

Gray marketing, the selling of trademarked
products through channels of distribution not
authorized by the trademark holder, can involve
distribution of goods either within a market region
(5) or across market boundaries. Gray marketing
within a market region (“channel flow diversion”)
occurs when manufacturer-authorized distributors
sell trademarked goods to unauthorized distributors
who then sell the goods to consumers within the
(10) same region. For example, quantity discounts from
manufacturers may motivate authorized dealers to
enter the gray market because they can purchase
larger quantities of a product than they themselves
intend to stock if they can sell the extra units
(15) through gray market channels.

When gray marketing occurs across market
boundaries, it is typically in an international
setting and may be called “parallel importing.”
Manufacturers often produce and sell products in
(20) more than one country and establish a network of
authorized dealers in each country. Parallel importing
occurs when trademarked goods intended for one
country are diverted from proper channels (channel
flow diversion) and then exported to unauthorized
(25) distributors in another country.

Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray
marketing practices since such practices clearly
jeopardize the goodwill established by trademark
owners: consumers who purchase trademarked
(30) goods in the gray market do not get the same
“extended product,” which typically includes pre
and postsale service. Equally important, authorized
distributors may cease to promote the product if it
becomes available for much lower prices through
(35) unauthorized channels.

Current debate over regulation of gray
marketing focuses on three disparate theories
in trademark law that have been variously and
confusingly applied to parallel importation cases:
(40) universality, exhaustion, and territoriality. The
theory of universality holds that a trademark is
only an indication of the source or origin of the
product. This theory does not recognize the goodwill
functions of a trademark. When the courts apply
(45) this theory, gray marketing practices are allowed to
continue because the origin of the product remains
the same regardless of the specific route of the
product through the channel of distribution. The
exhaustion theory holds that a trademark owner
(50) relinquishes all rights once a product has been sold.
When this theory is applied, gray marketing practices
are allowed to continue because the trademark
owners’ rights cease as soon as their products are
sold to a distributor. The theory of territoriality
(55) holds that a trademark is effective in the country
in which it is registered. Under the theory of
territoriality, trademark owners can stop gray
marketing practices in the registering countries on
products bearing their trademarks. Since only the
(60) territoriality theory affords trademark owners any
real legal protection against gray marketing practices,
I believe it is inevitable as well as desirable that it will
come to be consistently applied in gray marketing
cases.

8. The function of the passage as a whole is to

Gray marketing, the selling of trademarked
products through channels of distribution not
authorized by the trademark holder, can involve
distribution of goods either within a market region
(5) or across market boundaries. Gray marketing
within a market region (“channel flow diversion”)
occurs when manufacturer-authorized distributors
sell trademarked goods to unauthorized distributors
who then sell the goods to consumers within the
(10) same region. For example, quantity discounts from
manufacturers may motivate authorized dealers to
enter the gray market because they can purchase
larger quantities of a product than they themselves
intend to stock if they can sell the extra units
(15) through gray market channels.

When gray marketing occurs across market
boundaries, it is typically in an international
setting and may be called “parallel importing.”
Manufacturers often produce and sell products in
(20) more than one country and establish a network of
authorized dealers in each country. Parallel importing
occurs when trademarked goods intended for one
country are diverted from proper channels (channel
flow diversion) and then exported to unauthorized
(25) distributors in another country.

Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray
marketing practices since such practices clearly
jeopardize the goodwill established by trademark
owners: consumers who purchase trademarked
(30) goods in the gray market do not get the same
“extended product,” which typically includes pre
and postsale service. Equally important, authorized
distributors may cease to promote the product if it
becomes available for much lower prices through
(35) unauthorized channels.

Current debate over regulation of gray
marketing focuses on three disparate theories
in trademark law that have been variously and
confusingly applied to parallel importation cases:
(40) universality, exhaustion, and territoriality. The
theory of universality holds that a trademark is
only an indication of the source or origin of the
product. This theory does not recognize the goodwill
functions of a trademark. When the courts apply
(45) this theory, gray marketing practices are allowed to
continue because the origin of the product remains
the same regardless of the specific route of the
product through the channel of distribution. The
exhaustion theory holds that a trademark owner
(50) relinquishes all rights once a product has been sold.
When this theory is applied, gray marketing practices
are allowed to continue because the trademark
owners’ rights cease as soon as their products are
sold to a distributor. The theory of territoriality
(55) holds that a trademark is effective in the country
in which it is registered. Under the theory of
territoriality, trademark owners can stop gray
marketing practices in the registering countries on
products bearing their trademarks. Since only the
(60) territoriality theory affords trademark owners any
real legal protection against gray marketing practices,
I believe it is inevitable as well as desirable that it will
come to be consistently applied in gray marketing
cases.

9. Which one of the following does the author offer as an argument against gray marketing?

Gray marketing, the selling of trademarked
products through channels of distribution not
authorized by the trademark holder, can involve
distribution of goods either within a market region
(5) or across market boundaries. Gray marketing
within a market region (“channel flow diversion”)
occurs when manufacturer-authorized distributors
sell trademarked goods to unauthorized distributors
who then sell the goods to consumers within the
(10) same region. For example, quantity discounts from
manufacturers may motivate authorized dealers to
enter the gray market because they can purchase
larger quantities of a product than they themselves
intend to stock if they can sell the extra units
(15) through gray market channels.

When gray marketing occurs across market
boundaries, it is typically in an international
setting and may be called “parallel importing.”
Manufacturers often produce and sell products in
(20) more than one country and establish a network of
authorized dealers in each country. Parallel importing
occurs when trademarked goods intended for one
country are diverted from proper channels (channel
flow diversion) and then exported to unauthorized
(25) distributors in another country.

Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray
marketing practices since such practices clearly
jeopardize the goodwill established by trademark
owners: consumers who purchase trademarked
(30) goods in the gray market do not get the same
“extended product,” which typically includes pre
and postsale service. Equally important, authorized
distributors may cease to promote the product if it
becomes available for much lower prices through
(35) unauthorized channels.

Current debate over regulation of gray
marketing focuses on three disparate theories
in trademark law that have been variously and
confusingly applied to parallel importation cases:
(40) universality, exhaustion, and territoriality. The
theory of universality holds that a trademark is
only an indication of the source or origin of the
product. This theory does not recognize the goodwill
functions of a trademark. When the courts apply
(45) this theory, gray marketing practices are allowed to
continue because the origin of the product remains
the same regardless of the specific route of the
product through the channel of distribution. The
exhaustion theory holds that a trademark owner
(50) relinquishes all rights once a product has been sold.
When this theory is applied, gray marketing practices
are allowed to continue because the trademark
owners’ rights cease as soon as their products are
sold to a distributor. The theory of territoriality
(55) holds that a trademark is effective in the country
in which it is registered. Under the theory of
territoriality, trademark owners can stop gray
marketing practices in the registering countries on
products bearing their trademarks. Since only the
(60) territoriality theory affords trademark owners any
real legal protection against gray marketing practices,
I believe it is inevitable as well as desirable that it will
come to be consistently applied in gray marketing
cases.

10. The information in the passage suggests that proponents of the theory of territoriality would probably differ from proponents of the theory of exhaustion on which one of the following issues?

Gray marketing, the selling of trademarked
products through channels of distribution not
authorized by the trademark holder, can involve
distribution of goods either within a market region
(5) or across market boundaries. Gray marketing
within a market region (“channel flow diversion”)
occurs when manufacturer-authorized distributors
sell trademarked goods to unauthorized distributors
who then sell the goods to consumers within the
(10) same region. For example, quantity discounts from
manufacturers may motivate authorized dealers to
enter the gray market because they can purchase
larger quantities of a product than they themselves
intend to stock if they can sell the extra units
(15) through gray market channels.

When gray marketing occurs across market
boundaries, it is typically in an international
setting and may be called “parallel importing.”
Manufacturers often produce and sell products in
(20) more than one country and establish a network of
authorized dealers in each country. Parallel importing
occurs when trademarked goods intended for one
country are diverted from proper channels (channel
flow diversion) and then exported to unauthorized
(25) distributors in another country.

Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray
marketing practices since such practices clearly
jeopardize the goodwill established by trademark
owners: consumers who purchase trademarked
(30) goods in the gray market do not get the same
“extended product,” which typically includes pre
and postsale service. Equally important, authorized
distributors may cease to promote the product if it
becomes available for much lower prices through
(35) unauthorized channels.

Current debate over regulation of gray
marketing focuses on three disparate theories
in trademark law that have been variously and
confusingly applied to parallel importation cases:
(40) universality, exhaustion, and territoriality. The
theory of universality holds that a trademark is
only an indication of the source or origin of the
product. This theory does not recognize the goodwill
functions of a trademark. When the courts apply
(45) this theory, gray marketing practices are allowed to
continue because the origin of the product remains
the same regardless of the specific route of the
product through the channel of distribution. The
exhaustion theory holds that a trademark owner
(50) relinquishes all rights once a product has been sold.
When this theory is applied, gray marketing practices
are allowed to continue because the trademark
owners’ rights cease as soon as their products are
sold to a distributor. The theory of territoriality
(55) holds that a trademark is effective in the country
in which it is registered. Under the theory of
territoriality, trademark owners can stop gray
marketing practices in the registering countries on
products bearing their trademarks. Since only the
(60) territoriality theory affords trademark owners any
real legal protection against gray marketing practices,
I believe it is inevitable as well as desirable that it will
come to be consistently applied in gray marketing
cases.

11. The author discusses the impact of gray marketing on goodwill in order to

Gray marketing, the selling of trademarked
products through channels of distribution not
authorized by the trademark holder, can involve
distribution of goods either within a market region
(5) or across market boundaries. Gray marketing
within a market region (“channel flow diversion”)
occurs when manufacturer-authorized distributors
sell trademarked goods to unauthorized distributors
who then sell the goods to consumers within the
(10) same region. For example, quantity discounts from
manufacturers may motivate authorized dealers to
enter the gray market because they can purchase
larger quantities of a product than they themselves
intend to stock if they can sell the extra units
(15) through gray market channels.

When gray marketing occurs across market
boundaries, it is typically in an international
setting and may be called “parallel importing.”
Manufacturers often produce and sell products in
(20) more than one country and establish a network of
authorized dealers in each country. Parallel importing
occurs when trademarked goods intended for one
country are diverted from proper channels (channel
flow diversion) and then exported to unauthorized
(25) distributors in another country.

Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray
marketing practices since such practices clearly
jeopardize the goodwill established by trademark
owners: consumers who purchase trademarked
(30) goods in the gray market do not get the same
“extended product,” which typically includes pre
and postsale service. Equally important, authorized
distributors may cease to promote the product if it
becomes available for much lower prices through
(35) unauthorized channels.

Current debate over regulation of gray
marketing focuses on three disparate theories
in trademark law that have been variously and
confusingly applied to parallel importation cases:
(40) universality, exhaustion, and territoriality. The
theory of universality holds that a trademark is
only an indication of the source or origin of the
product. This theory does not recognize the goodwill
functions of a trademark. When the courts apply
(45) this theory, gray marketing practices are allowed to
continue because the origin of the product remains
the same regardless of the specific route of the
product through the channel of distribution. The
exhaustion theory holds that a trademark owner
(50) relinquishes all rights once a product has been sold.
When this theory is applied, gray marketing practices
are allowed to continue because the trademark
owners’ rights cease as soon as their products are
sold to a distributor. The theory of territoriality
(55) holds that a trademark is effective in the country
in which it is registered. Under the theory of
territoriality, trademark owners can stop gray
marketing practices in the registering countries on
products bearing their trademarks. Since only the
(60) territoriality theory affords trademark owners any
real legal protection against gray marketing practices,
I believe it is inevitable as well as desirable that it will
come to be consistently applied in gray marketing
cases.

12. The author’s attitude toward the possibility that the courts will come to exercise consistent control over gray marketing practices can best be characterized as one of

Gray marketing, the selling of trademarked
products through channels of distribution not
authorized by the trademark holder, can involve
distribution of goods either within a market region
(5) or across market boundaries. Gray marketing
within a market region (“channel flow diversion”)
occurs when manufacturer-authorized distributors
sell trademarked goods to unauthorized distributors
who then sell the goods to consumers within the
(10) same region. For example, quantity discounts from
manufacturers may motivate authorized dealers to
enter the gray market because they can purchase
larger quantities of a product than they themselves
intend to stock if they can sell the extra units
(15) through gray market channels.

When gray marketing occurs across market
boundaries, it is typically in an international
setting and may be called “parallel importing.”
Manufacturers often produce and sell products in
(20) more than one country and establish a network of
authorized dealers in each country. Parallel importing
occurs when trademarked goods intended for one
country are diverted from proper channels (channel
flow diversion) and then exported to unauthorized
(25) distributors in another country.

Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray
marketing practices since such practices clearly
jeopardize the goodwill established by trademark
owners: consumers who purchase trademarked
(30) goods in the gray market do not get the same
“extended product,” which typically includes pre
and postsale service. Equally important, authorized
distributors may cease to promote the product if it
becomes available for much lower prices through
(35) unauthorized channels.

Current debate over regulation of gray
marketing focuses on three disparate theories
in trademark law that have been variously and
confusingly applied to parallel importation cases:
(40) universality, exhaustion, and territoriality. The
theory of universality holds that a trademark is
only an indication of the source or origin of the
product. This theory does not recognize the goodwill
functions of a trademark. When the courts apply
(45) this theory, gray marketing practices are allowed to
continue because the origin of the product remains
the same regardless of the specific route of the
product through the channel of distribution. The
exhaustion theory holds that a trademark owner
(50) relinquishes all rights once a product has been sold.
When this theory is applied, gray marketing practices
are allowed to continue because the trademark
owners’ rights cease as soon as their products are
sold to a distributor. The theory of territoriality
(55) holds that a trademark is effective in the country
in which it is registered. Under the theory of
territoriality, trademark owners can stop gray
marketing practices in the registering countries on
products bearing their trademarks. Since only the
(60) territoriality theory affords trademark owners any
real legal protection against gray marketing practices,
I believe it is inevitable as well as desirable that it will
come to be consistently applied in gray marketing
cases.

13. It can be inferred from the passage that some channel flow diversion might be eliminated if

Gray marketing, the selling of trademarked
products through channels of distribution not
authorized by the trademark holder, can involve
distribution of goods either within a market region
(5) or across market boundaries. Gray marketing
within a market region (“channel flow diversion”)
occurs when manufacturer-authorized distributors
sell trademarked goods to unauthorized distributors
who then sell the goods to consumers within the
(10) same region. For example, quantity discounts from
manufacturers may motivate authorized dealers to
enter the gray market because they can purchase
larger quantities of a product than they themselves
intend to stock if they can sell the extra units
(15) through gray market channels.

When gray marketing occurs across market
boundaries, it is typically in an international
setting and may be called “parallel importing.”
Manufacturers often produce and sell products in
(20) more than one country and establish a network of
authorized dealers in each country. Parallel importing
occurs when trademarked goods intended for one
country are diverted from proper channels (channel
flow diversion) and then exported to unauthorized
(25) distributors in another country.

Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray
marketing practices since such practices clearly
jeopardize the goodwill established by trademark
owners: consumers who purchase trademarked
(30) goods in the gray market do not get the same
“extended product,” which typically includes pre
and postsale service. Equally important, authorized
distributors may cease to promote the product if it
becomes available for much lower prices through
(35) unauthorized channels.

Current debate over regulation of gray
marketing focuses on three disparate theories
in trademark law that have been variously and
confusingly applied to parallel importation cases:
(40) universality, exhaustion, and territoriality. The
theory of universality holds that a trademark is
only an indication of the source or origin of the
product. This theory does not recognize the goodwill
functions of a trademark. When the courts apply
(45) this theory, gray marketing practices are allowed to
continue because the origin of the product remains
the same regardless of the specific route of the
product through the channel of distribution. The
exhaustion theory holds that a trademark owner
(50) relinquishes all rights once a product has been sold.
When this theory is applied, gray marketing practices
are allowed to continue because the trademark
owners’ rights cease as soon as their products are
sold to a distributor. The theory of territoriality
(55) holds that a trademark is effective in the country
in which it is registered. Under the theory of
territoriality, trademark owners can stop gray
marketing practices in the registering countries on
products bearing their trademarks. Since only the
(60) territoriality theory affords trademark owners any
real legal protection against gray marketing practices,
I believe it is inevitable as well as desirable that it will
come to be consistently applied in gray marketing
cases.

14. Which one of the following best summarizes the main point of the passage?

Any study of autobiographical narratives that
appeared under the ostensible authorship of
African American writers between 1760 and 1865
inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and
(5) interpretation. Should an autobiography whose
written composition was literally out of the hands
of its narrator be considered as the literary
equivalent of those autobiographies that were
authored independently by their subjects?

(10) In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of
an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten
account insofar as literary analysis is concerned,
especially when it was composed by its editor from
“a statement of facts” provided by an African
(15) American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to
show that the editors of several of the more famous
antebellum slave narratives were “noted for their
integrity” and thus were unlikely to distort the facts
given them by slave narrators. From a literary
(20) standpoint, however, it is not the moral integrity of
these editors that is at issue but the linguistic,
structural, and tonal integrity of the narratives they
produced. Even if an editor faithfully reproduced
the facts of a narrator’s life, it was still the editor
(25) who decided what to make of these facts, how they
should be emphasized, in what order they ought to
be presented, and what was extraneous or germane.
Readers of African American autobiography then
and now have too readily accepted the presumption
(30) of these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors
that experiential facts recounted orally could be
recorded and sorted by an amanuensis-editor,
taken out of their original contexts, and then
published with editorial prefaces, footnotes, and
(35) appended commentary, all without compromising
the validity of the narrative as a product of an
African American consciousness.

Transcribed narratives in which an editor
explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may
(40) be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the
narrator’s thought in action than those edited
works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways
unaccounted for. Still, it would be naive to accord
dictated oral narratives the same status as
(45) autobiographies composed and written by the
subjects of the stories themselves. This point is
illustrated by an analysis of Works Progress
Administration interviews with ex-slaves in the
1930s that suggests that narrators often told
(50) interviewers what they seemed to want to hear. If
it seemed impolitic for former slaves to tell all they
knew and thought about the past to interviewers in
the 1930s, the same could be said of escaped slaves
on the run in the antebellum era. Dictated narratives,
(55) therefore, are literary texts whose authenticity is
difficult to determine. Analysts should reserve close
analytic readings for independently authored texts.
Discussion of collaborative texts should take into
account the conditions that governed their
(60) production.

15. The information in the passage suggests that the role of the “editor” (lines 23–24) is most like that of

Any study of autobiographical narratives that
appeared under the ostensible authorship of
African American writers between 1760 and 1865
inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and
(5) interpretation. Should an autobiography whose
written composition was literally out of the hands
of its narrator be considered as the literary
equivalent of those autobiographies that were
authored independently by their subjects?

(10) In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of
an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten
account insofar as literary analysis is concerned,
especially when it was composed by its editor from
“a statement of facts” provided by an African
(15) American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to
show that the editors of several of the more famous
antebellum slave narratives were “noted for their
integrity” and thus were unlikely to distort the facts
given them by slave narrators. From a literary
(20) standpoint, however, it is not the moral integrity of
these editors that is at issue but the linguistic,
structural, and tonal integrity of the narratives they
produced. Even if an editor faithfully reproduced
the facts of a narrator’s life, it was still the editor
(25) who decided what to make of these facts, how they
should be emphasized, in what order they ought to
be presented, and what was extraneous or germane.
Readers of African American autobiography then
and now have too readily accepted the presumption
(30) of these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors
that experiential facts recounted orally could be
recorded and sorted by an amanuensis-editor,
taken out of their original contexts, and then
published with editorial prefaces, footnotes, and
(35) appended commentary, all without compromising
the validity of the narrative as a product of an
African American consciousness.

Transcribed narratives in which an editor
explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may
(40) be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the
narrator’s thought in action than those edited
works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways
unaccounted for. Still, it would be naive to accord
dictated oral narratives the same status as
(45) autobiographies composed and written by the
subjects of the stories themselves. This point is
illustrated by an analysis of Works Progress
Administration interviews with ex-slaves in the
1930s that suggests that narrators often told
(50) interviewers what they seemed to want to hear. If
it seemed impolitic for former slaves to tell all they
knew and thought about the past to interviewers in
the 1930s, the same could be said of escaped slaves
on the run in the antebellum era. Dictated narratives,
(55) therefore, are literary texts whose authenticity is
difficult to determine. Analysts should reserve close
analytic readings for independently authored texts.
Discussion of collaborative texts should take into
account the conditions that governed their
(60) production.

16. Which one of the following best describes the author’s opinion about applying literary analysis to edited autobiographies?

Any study of autobiographical narratives that
appeared under the ostensible authorship of
African American writers between 1760 and 1865
inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and
(5) interpretation. Should an autobiography whose
written composition was literally out of the hands
of its narrator be considered as the literary
equivalent of those autobiographies that were
authored independently by their subjects?

(10) In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of
an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten
account insofar as literary analysis is concerned,
especially when it was composed by its editor from
“a statement of facts” provided by an African
(15) American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to
show that the editors of several of the more famous
antebellum slave narratives were “noted for their
integrity” and thus were unlikely to distort the facts
given them by slave narrators. From a literary
(20) standpoint, however, it is not the moral integrity of
these editors that is at issue but the linguistic,
structural, and tonal integrity of the narratives they
produced. Even if an editor faithfully reproduced
the facts of a narrator’s life, it was still the editor
(25) who decided what to make of these facts, how they
should be emphasized, in what order they ought to
be presented, and what was extraneous or germane.
Readers of African American autobiography then
and now have too readily accepted the presumption
(30) of these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors
that experiential facts recounted orally could be
recorded and sorted by an amanuensis-editor,
taken out of their original contexts, and then
published with editorial prefaces, footnotes, and
(35) appended commentary, all without compromising
the validity of the narrative as a product of an
African American consciousness.

Transcribed narratives in which an editor
explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may
(40) be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the
narrator’s thought in action than those edited
works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways
unaccounted for. Still, it would be naive to accord
dictated oral narratives the same status as
(45) autobiographies composed and written by the
subjects of the stories themselves. This point is
illustrated by an analysis of Works Progress
Administration interviews with ex-slaves in the
1930s that suggests that narrators often told
(50) interviewers what they seemed to want to hear. If
it seemed impolitic for former slaves to tell all they
knew and thought about the past to interviewers in
the 1930s, the same could be said of escaped slaves
on the run in the antebellum era. Dictated narratives,
(55) therefore, are literary texts whose authenticity is
difficult to determine. Analysts should reserve close
analytic readings for independently authored texts.
Discussion of collaborative texts should take into
account the conditions that governed their
(60) production.

17. The passage supports which one of the following statements about the readers of autobiographies of African Americans that were published between 1760 and 1865?

Any study of autobiographical narratives that
appeared under the ostensible authorship of
African American writers between 1760 and 1865
inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and
(5) interpretation. Should an autobiography whose
written composition was literally out of the hands
of its narrator be considered as the literary
equivalent of those autobiographies that were
authored independently by their subjects?

(10) In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of
an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten
account insofar as literary analysis is concerned,
especially when it was composed by its editor from
“a statement of facts” provided by an African
(15) American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to
show that the editors of several of the more famous
antebellum slave narratives were “noted for their
integrity” and thus were unlikely to distort the facts
given them by slave narrators. From a literary
(20) standpoint, however, it is not the moral integrity of
these editors that is at issue but the linguistic,
structural, and tonal integrity of the narratives they
produced. Even if an editor faithfully reproduced
the facts of a narrator’s life, it was still the editor
(25) who decided what to make of these facts, how they
should be emphasized, in what order they ought to
be presented, and what was extraneous or germane.
Readers of African American autobiography then
and now have too readily accepted the presumption
(30) of these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors
that experiential facts recounted orally could be
recorded and sorted by an amanuensis-editor,
taken out of their original contexts, and then
published with editorial prefaces, footnotes, and
(35) appended commentary, all without compromising
the validity of the narrative as a product of an
African American consciousness.

Transcribed narratives in which an editor
explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may
(40) be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the
narrator’s thought in action than those edited
works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways
unaccounted for. Still, it would be naive to accord
dictated oral narratives the same status as
(45) autobiographies composed and written by the
subjects of the stories themselves. This point is
illustrated by an analysis of Works Progress
Administration interviews with ex-slaves in the
1930s that suggests that narrators often told
(50) interviewers what they seemed to want to hear. If
it seemed impolitic for former slaves to tell all they
knew and thought about the past to interviewers in
the 1930s, the same could be said of escaped slaves
on the run in the antebellum era. Dictated narratives,
(55) therefore, are literary texts whose authenticity is
difficult to determine. Analysts should reserve close
analytic readings for independently authored texts.
Discussion of collaborative texts should take into
account the conditions that governed their
(60) production.

18. Which one of the following words, as it is used in the passage, best serves to underscore the author’s concerns about the authenticity of the autobiographies discussed?

Any study of autobiographical narratives that
appeared under the ostensible authorship of
African American writers between 1760 and 1865
inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and
(5) interpretation. Should an autobiography whose
written composition was literally out of the hands
of its narrator be considered as the literary
equivalent of those autobiographies that were
authored independently by their subjects?

(10) In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of
an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten
account insofar as literary analysis is concerned,
especially when it was composed by its editor from
“a statement of facts” provided by an African
(15) American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to
show that the editors of several of the more famous
antebellum slave narratives were “noted for their
integrity” and thus were unlikely to distort the facts
given them by slave narrators. From a literary
(20) standpoint, however, it is not the moral integrity of
these editors that is at issue but the linguistic,
structural, and tonal integrity of the narratives they
produced. Even if an editor faithfully reproduced
the facts of a narrator’s life, it was still the editor
(25) who decided what to make of these facts, how they
should be emphasized, in what order they ought to
be presented, and what was extraneous or germane.
Readers of African American autobiography then
and now have too readily accepted the presumption
(30) of these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors
that experiential facts recounted orally could be
recorded and sorted by an amanuensis-editor,
taken out of their original contexts, and then
published with editorial prefaces, footnotes, and
(35) appended commentary, all without compromising
the validity of the narrative as a product of an
African American consciousness.

Transcribed narratives in which an editor
explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may
(40) be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the
narrator’s thought in action than those edited
works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways
unaccounted for. Still, it would be naive to accord
dictated oral narratives the same status as
(45) autobiographies composed and written by the
subjects of the stories themselves. This point is
illustrated by an analysis of Works Progress
Administration interviews with ex-slaves in the
1930s that suggests that narrators often told
(50) interviewers what they seemed to want to hear. If
it seemed impolitic for former slaves to tell all they
knew and thought about the past to interviewers in
the 1930s, the same could be said of escaped slaves
on the run in the antebellum era. Dictated narratives,
(55) therefore, are literary texts whose authenticity is
difficult to determine. Analysts should reserve close
analytic readings for independently authored texts.
Discussion of collaborative texts should take into
account the conditions that governed their
(60) production.

19. According to the passage, close analytic reading of an autobiography is appropriate only when the

Any study of autobiographical narratives that
appeared under the ostensible authorship of
African American writers between 1760 and 1865
inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and
(5) interpretation. Should an autobiography whose
written composition was literally out of the hands
of its narrator be considered as the literary
equivalent of those autobiographies that were
authored independently by their subjects?

(10) In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of
an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten
account insofar as literary analysis is concerned,
especially when it was composed by its editor from
“a statement of facts” provided by an African
(15) American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to
show that the editors of several of the more famous
antebellum slave narratives were “noted for their
integrity” and thus were unlikely to distort the facts
given them by slave narrators. From a literary
(20) standpoint, however, it is not the moral integrity of
these editors that is at issue but the linguistic,
structural, and tonal integrity of the narratives they
produced. Even if an editor faithfully reproduced
the facts of a narrator’s life, it was still the editor
(25) who decided what to make of these facts, how they
should be emphasized, in what order they ought to
be presented, and what was extraneous or germane.
Readers of African American autobiography then
and now have too readily accepted the presumption
(30) of these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors
that experiential facts recounted orally could be
recorded and sorted by an amanuensis-editor,
taken out of their original contexts, and then
published with editorial prefaces, footnotes, and
(35) appended commentary, all without compromising
the validity of the narrative as a product of an
African American consciousness.

Transcribed narratives in which an editor
explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may
(40) be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the
narrator’s thought in action than those edited
works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways
unaccounted for. Still, it would be naive to accord
dictated oral narratives the same status as
(45) autobiographies composed and written by the
subjects of the stories themselves. This point is
illustrated by an analysis of Works Progress
Administration interviews with ex-slaves in the
1930s that suggests that narrators often told
(50) interviewers what they seemed to want to hear. If
it seemed impolitic for former slaves to tell all they
knew and thought about the past to interviewers in
the 1930s, the same could be said of escaped slaves
on the run in the antebellum era. Dictated narratives,
(55) therefore, are literary texts whose authenticity is
difficult to determine. Analysts should reserve close
analytic readings for independently authored texts.
Discussion of collaborative texts should take into
account the conditions that governed their
(60) production.

20. It can be inferred that the discussion in the passage of Blassingame’s work primarily serves which one of the following purposes?

Any study of autobiographical narratives that
appeared under the ostensible authorship of
African American writers between 1760 and 1865
inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and
(5) interpretation. Should an autobiography whose
written composition was literally out of the hands
of its narrator be considered as the literary
equivalent of those autobiographies that were
authored independently by their subjects?

(10) In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of
an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten
account insofar as literary analysis is concerned,
especially when it was composed by its editor from
“a statement of facts” provided by an African
(15) American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to
show that the editors of several of the more famous
antebellum slave narratives were “noted for their
integrity” and thus were unlikely to distort the facts
given them by slave narrators. From a literary
(20) standpoint, however, it is not the moral integrity of
these editors that is at issue but the linguistic,
structural, and tonal integrity of the narratives they
produced. Even if an editor faithfully reproduced
the facts of a narrator’s life, it was still the editor
(25) who decided what to make of these facts, how they
should be emphasized, in what order they ought to
be presented, and what was extraneous or germane.
Readers of African American autobiography then
and now have too readily accepted the presumption
(30) of these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors
that experiential facts recounted orally could be
recorded and sorted by an amanuensis-editor,
taken out of their original contexts, and then
published with editorial prefaces, footnotes, and
(35) appended commentary, all without compromising
the validity of the narrative as a product of an
African American consciousness.

Transcribed narratives in which an editor
explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may
(40) be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the
narrator’s thought in action than those edited
works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways
unaccounted for. Still, it would be naive to accord
dictated oral narratives the same status as
(45) autobiographies composed and written by the
subjects of the stories themselves. This point is
illustrated by an analysis of Works Progress
Administration interviews with ex-slaves in the
1930s that suggests that narrators often told
(50) interviewers what they seemed to want to hear. If
it seemed impolitic for former slaves to tell all they
knew and thought about the past to interviewers in
the 1930s, the same could be said of escaped slaves
on the run in the antebellum era. Dictated narratives,
(55) therefore, are literary texts whose authenticity is
difficult to determine. Analysts should reserve close
analytic readings for independently authored texts.
Discussion of collaborative texts should take into
account the conditions that governed their
(60) production.

21. The main idea of the passage is that

A conventional view of nineteenth-century
Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile
manufacturers from the north of England became
the wealthiest and most powerful people in society
(5) after about 1832. According to Marxist historians,
these industrialists were the target of the working
class in its struggle for power. A new study by
Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth
lay with the bankers and merchants of London.
(10) Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial
elite existed but argues that it was consistently
outnumbered and outdone by a London-based
commercial elite. His claims are provocative and
deserve consideration.

(15) Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth
comes from his investigation of probate records.
These indicate the value of personal property,
excluding real property (buildings and land), left by
individuals at death. It does seem as if large fortunes
(20) were more frequently made in commerce than in
industry and, within industry, more frequently from
alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
However, such records do not unequivocally make
Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how
(25) the probate rules for valuing assets were actually
applied. Mills and factories, being real property,
were clearly excluded; machinery may also have
been, for the same reason. What the valuation
conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale)
(30) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate
values were much lower than their actual market
values; cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or
stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered
at full face value. A further complication is that
(35) probate valuations probably took no notice of a
business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which,
since it represents expectations about future
profit-making, would today very often be a large
fraction of market value. Whether factors like these
(40) introduced systematic biases into the probate
valuations of individuals with different types of
businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals
were the most powerful is also questioned by
(45) Rubinstein’s study. The problem for this orthodox
view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who
are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians;
the reason for their obscurity could be that they
were not powerful. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses
(50) any notion that great wealth had anything to do
with entry into the governing elite, as represented
by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of
manufacturing companies. The only requirements
were university attendance and a father with a
(55) middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to
buttress his findings about the location of wealth
by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a
geographical distribution of middle-class incomes
(60) similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by
probate records. But until further confirmatory
investigation is done, his claims can only be
considered partially convincing.

22. The author of the passage implies that probate records as a source of information about wealth in nineteenth-century Britain are

A conventional view of nineteenth-century
Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile
manufacturers from the north of England became
the wealthiest and most powerful people in society
(5) after about 1832. According to Marxist historians,
these industrialists were the target of the working
class in its struggle for power. A new study by
Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth
lay with the bankers and merchants of London.
(10) Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial
elite existed but argues that it was consistently
outnumbered and outdone by a London-based
commercial elite. His claims are provocative and
deserve consideration.

(15) Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth
comes from his investigation of probate records.
These indicate the value of personal property,
excluding real property (buildings and land), left by
individuals at death. It does seem as if large fortunes
(20) were more frequently made in commerce than in
industry and, within industry, more frequently from
alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
However, such records do not unequivocally make
Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how
(25) the probate rules for valuing assets were actually
applied. Mills and factories, being real property,
were clearly excluded; machinery may also have
been, for the same reason. What the valuation
conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale)
(30) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate
values were much lower than their actual market
values; cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or
stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered
at full face value. A further complication is that
(35) probate valuations probably took no notice of a
business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which,
since it represents expectations about future
profit-making, would today very often be a large
fraction of market value. Whether factors like these
(40) introduced systematic biases into the probate
valuations of individuals with different types of
businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals
were the most powerful is also questioned by
(45) Rubinstein’s study. The problem for this orthodox
view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who
are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians;
the reason for their obscurity could be that they
were not powerful. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses
(50) any notion that great wealth had anything to do
with entry into the governing elite, as represented
by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of
manufacturing companies. The only requirements
were university attendance and a father with a
(55) middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to
buttress his findings about the location of wealth
by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a
geographical distribution of middle-class incomes
(60) similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by
probate records. But until further confirmatory
investigation is done, his claims can only be
considered partially convincing.

23. The author suggests that the total probate valuations of the personal property of individuals holding goods for sale in nineteenth-century Britain may have been

A conventional view of nineteenth-century
Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile
manufacturers from the north of England became
the wealthiest and most powerful people in society
(5) after about 1832. According to Marxist historians,
these industrialists were the target of the working
class in its struggle for power. A new study by
Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth
lay with the bankers and merchants of London.
(10) Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial
elite existed but argues that it was consistently
outnumbered and outdone by a London-based
commercial elite. His claims are provocative and
deserve consideration.

(15) Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth
comes from his investigation of probate records.
These indicate the value of personal property,
excluding real property (buildings and land), left by
individuals at death. It does seem as if large fortunes
(20) were more frequently made in commerce than in
industry and, within industry, more frequently from
alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
However, such records do not unequivocally make
Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how
(25) the probate rules for valuing assets were actually
applied. Mills and factories, being real property,
were clearly excluded; machinery may also have
been, for the same reason. What the valuation
conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale)
(30) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate
values were much lower than their actual market
values; cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or
stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered
at full face value. A further complication is that
(35) probate valuations probably took no notice of a
business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which,
since it represents expectations about future
profit-making, would today very often be a large
fraction of market value. Whether factors like these
(40) introduced systematic biases into the probate
valuations of individuals with different types of
businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals
were the most powerful is also questioned by
(45) Rubinstein’s study. The problem for this orthodox
view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who
are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians;
the reason for their obscurity could be that they
were not powerful. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses
(50) any notion that great wealth had anything to do
with entry into the governing elite, as represented
by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of
manufacturing companies. The only requirements
were university attendance and a father with a
(55) middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to
buttress his findings about the location of wealth
by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a
geographical distribution of middle-class incomes
(60) similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by
probate records. But until further confirmatory
investigation is done, his claims can only be
considered partially convincing.

24. According to the passage, Rubinstein has provided evidence that challenges which one of the following claims about nineteenth-century Britain?

A conventional view of nineteenth-century
Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile
manufacturers from the north of England became
the wealthiest and most powerful people in society
(5) after about 1832. According to Marxist historians,
these industrialists were the target of the working
class in its struggle for power. A new study by
Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth
lay with the bankers and merchants of London.
(10) Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial
elite existed but argues that it was consistently
outnumbered and outdone by a London-based
commercial elite. His claims are provocative and
deserve consideration.

(15) Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth
comes from his investigation of probate records.
These indicate the value of personal property,
excluding real property (buildings and land), left by
individuals at death. It does seem as if large fortunes
(20) were more frequently made in commerce than in
industry and, within industry, more frequently from
alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
However, such records do not unequivocally make
Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how
(25) the probate rules for valuing assets were actually
applied. Mills and factories, being real property,
were clearly excluded; machinery may also have
been, for the same reason. What the valuation
conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale)
(30) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate
values were much lower than their actual market
values; cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or
stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered
at full face value. A further complication is that
(35) probate valuations probably took no notice of a
business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which,
since it represents expectations about future
profit-making, would today very often be a large
fraction of market value. Whether factors like these
(40) introduced systematic biases into the probate
valuations of individuals with different types of
businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals
were the most powerful is also questioned by
(45) Rubinstein’s study. The problem for this orthodox
view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who
are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians;
the reason for their obscurity could be that they
were not powerful. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses
(50) any notion that great wealth had anything to do
with entry into the governing elite, as represented
by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of
manufacturing companies. The only requirements
were university attendance and a father with a
(55) middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to
buttress his findings about the location of wealth
by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a
geographical distribution of middle-class incomes
(60) similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by
probate records. But until further confirmatory
investigation is done, his claims can only be
considered partially convincing.

25. The author mentions that goodwill was probably excluded from the probate valuation of a business in nineteenth-century Britain most likely in order to

A conventional view of nineteenth-century
Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile
manufacturers from the north of England became
the wealthiest and most powerful people in society
(5) after about 1832. According to Marxist historians,
these industrialists were the target of the working
class in its struggle for power. A new study by
Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth
lay with the bankers and merchants of London.
(10) Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial
elite existed but argues that it was consistently
outnumbered and outdone by a London-based
commercial elite. His claims are provocative and
deserve consideration.

(15) Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth
comes from his investigation of probate records.
These indicate the value of personal property,
excluding real property (buildings and land), left by
individuals at death. It does seem as if large fortunes
(20) were more frequently made in commerce than in
industry and, within industry, more frequently from
alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
However, such records do not unequivocally make
Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how
(25) the probate rules for valuing assets were actually
applied. Mills and factories, being real property,
were clearly excluded; machinery may also have
been, for the same reason. What the valuation
conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale)
(30) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate
values were much lower than their actual market
values; cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or
stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered
at full face value. A further complication is that
(35) probate valuations probably took no notice of a
business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which,
since it represents expectations about future
profit-making, would today very often be a large
fraction of market value. Whether factors like these
(40) introduced systematic biases into the probate
valuations of individuals with different types of
businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals
were the most powerful is also questioned by
(45) Rubinstein’s study. The problem for this orthodox
view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who
are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians;
the reason for their obscurity could be that they
were not powerful. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses
(50) any notion that great wealth had anything to do
with entry into the governing elite, as represented
by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of
manufacturing companies. The only requirements
were university attendance and a father with a
(55) middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to
buttress his findings about the location of wealth
by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a
geographical distribution of middle-class incomes
(60) similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by
probate records. But until further confirmatory
investigation is done, his claims can only be
considered partially convincing.

26. Which one of the following studies would provide support for Rubinstein’s claims?

A conventional view of nineteenth-century
Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile
manufacturers from the north of England became
the wealthiest and most powerful people in society
(5) after about 1832. According to Marxist historians,
these industrialists were the target of the working
class in its struggle for power. A new study by
Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth
lay with the bankers and merchants of London.
(10) Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial
elite existed but argues that it was consistently
outnumbered and outdone by a London-based
commercial elite. His claims are provocative and
deserve consideration.

(15) Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth
comes from his investigation of probate records.
These indicate the value of personal property,
excluding real property (buildings and land), left by
individuals at death. It does seem as if large fortunes
(20) were more frequently made in commerce than in
industry and, within industry, more frequently from
alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
However, such records do not unequivocally make
Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how
(25) the probate rules for valuing assets were actually
applied. Mills and factories, being real property,
were clearly excluded; machinery may also have
been, for the same reason. What the valuation
conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale)
(30) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate
values were much lower than their actual market
values; cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or
stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered
at full face value. A further complication is that
(35) probate valuations probably took no notice of a
business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which,
since it represents expectations about future
profit-making, would today very often be a large
fraction of market value. Whether factors like these
(40) introduced systematic biases into the probate
valuations of individuals with different types of
businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals
were the most powerful is also questioned by
(45) Rubinstein’s study. The problem for this orthodox
view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who
are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians;
the reason for their obscurity could be that they
were not powerful. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses
(50) any notion that great wealth had anything to do
with entry into the governing elite, as represented
by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of
manufacturing companies. The only requirements
were university attendance and a father with a
(55) middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to
buttress his findings about the location of wealth
by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a
geographical distribution of middle-class incomes
(60) similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by
probate records. But until further confirmatory
investigation is done, his claims can only be
considered partially convincing.

27. Which one of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on Rubinstein’s argument concerning wealth and the official governing elite in nineteenth-century Britain?

A conventional view of nineteenth-century
Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile
manufacturers from the north of England became
the wealthiest and most powerful people in society
(5) after about 1832. According to Marxist historians,
these industrialists were the target of the working
class in its struggle for power. A new study by
Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth
lay with the bankers and merchants of London.
(10) Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial
elite existed but argues that it was consistently
outnumbered and outdone by a London-based
commercial elite. His claims are provocative and
deserve consideration.

(15) Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth
comes from his investigation of probate records.
These indicate the value of personal property,
excluding real property (buildings and land), left by
individuals at death. It does seem as if large fortunes
(20) were more frequently made in commerce than in
industry and, within industry, more frequently from
alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
However, such records do not unequivocally make
Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how
(25) the probate rules for valuing assets were actually
applied. Mills and factories, being real property,
were clearly excluded; machinery may also have
been, for the same reason. What the valuation
conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale)
(30) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate
values were much lower than their actual market
values; cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or
stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered
at full face value. A further complication is that
(35) probate valuations probably took no notice of a
business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which,
since it represents expectations about future
profit-making, would today very often be a large
fraction of market value. Whether factors like these
(40) introduced systematic biases into the probate
valuations of individuals with different types of
businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals
were the most powerful is also questioned by
(45) Rubinstein’s study. The problem for this orthodox
view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who
are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians;
the reason for their obscurity could be that they
were not powerful. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses
(50) any notion that great wealth had anything to do
with entry into the governing elite, as represented
by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of
manufacturing companies. The only requirements
were university attendance and a father with a
(55) middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to
buttress his findings about the location of wealth
by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a
geographical distribution of middle-class incomes
(60) similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by
probate records. But until further confirmatory
investigation is done, his claims can only be
considered partially convincing.