1. Which one of the following best summarizes the main idea of the passage?

The labor force is often organized as if workers
had no family responsibilities. Preschool-age children
need full-time care; children in primary school need
care after school and during school vacations.
(5) Although day-care services can resolve some
scheduling conflicts between home and office,
workers cannot always find or afford suitable care.
Even when they obtain such care, parents must still
cope with emergencies, such as illnesses, that keep
(10) children at home. Moreover, children need more than
tending; they also need meaningful time with their
parents. Conventional full-time workdays, especially
when combined with unavoidable household duties,
are too inflexible for parents with primary child-care
(15) responsibility.

Although a small but increasing number of
working men are single parents, those barriers against
successful participation in the labor market that are
related to primary child-care responsibilities mainly
(20) disadvantage women. Even in families where both
parents work, cultural pressures are traditionally
much greater on mothers than on fathers to bear the
primary child-rearing responsibilities.

In reconciling child-rearing responsibilities with
(25) participation in the labor market, many working
mothers are forced to make compromises. For
example, approximately one-third of all working
mothers are employed only part-time, even though
part-time jobs are dramatically underpaid and often
(30) less desirable in comparison to full-time employment.
Even though part-time work is usually available only
in occupations offering minimal employee
responsibility and little opportunity for advancement
or self-enrichment, such employment does allow
(35) many women the time and flexibility to fulfill their
family duties, but only at the expense of the
advantages associated with full-time employment.

Moreover, even mothers with full-time
employment must compromise opportunities in
(40) order to adjust to barriers against parents in the labor
market. Many choose jobs entailing little challenge or
responsibility or those offering flexible scheduling,
often available only in poorly paid positions, while
other working mothers, although willing and able to
(45) assume as much responsibility as people without
children, find that their need to spend regular and
predictable time with their children inevitably causes
them to lose career opportunities to those without
such demands. Thus, women in education are more
(50) likely to become teachers than school administrators,
whose more conventional full-time work schedules do
not correspond to the schedules of school-age
children, while female lawyers are more likely to
practice law in trusts and estates, where they can
(55) control their work schedules, than in litigation, where
they cannot. Nonprofessional women are
concentrated in secretarial work and department
store sales, where their absences can be covered easily
by substitutes and where they can enter and leave the
(60) work force with little loss, since the jobs offer so little
personal gain. Indeed, as long as the labor market
remains hostile to parents, and family roles continue
to be allocated on the basis of gender, women will be
seriously disadvantaged in that labor market.

2. Which one of the following statements about part-time work can be inferred from the information presented in the passage?

The labor force is often organized as if workers
had no family responsibilities. Preschool-age children
need full-time care; children in primary school need
care after school and during school vacations.
(5) Although day-care services can resolve some
scheduling conflicts between home and office,
workers cannot always find or afford suitable care.
Even when they obtain such care, parents must still
cope with emergencies, such as illnesses, that keep
(10) children at home. Moreover, children need more than
tending; they also need meaningful time with their
parents. Conventional full-time workdays, especially
when combined with unavoidable household duties,
are too inflexible for parents with primary child-care
(15) responsibility.

Although a small but increasing number of
working men are single parents, those barriers against
successful participation in the labor market that are
related to primary child-care responsibilities mainly
(20) disadvantage women. Even in families where both
parents work, cultural pressures are traditionally
much greater on mothers than on fathers to bear the
primary child-rearing responsibilities.

In reconciling child-rearing responsibilities with
(25) participation in the labor market, many working
mothers are forced to make compromises. For
example, approximately one-third of all working
mothers are employed only part-time, even though
part-time jobs are dramatically underpaid and often
(30) less desirable in comparison to full-time employment.
Even though part-time work is usually available only
in occupations offering minimal employee
responsibility and little opportunity for advancement
or self-enrichment, such employment does allow
(35) many women the time and flexibility to fulfill their
family duties, but only at the expense of the
advantages associated with full-time employment.

Moreover, even mothers with full-time
employment must compromise opportunities in
(40) order to adjust to barriers against parents in the labor
market. Many choose jobs entailing little challenge or
responsibility or those offering flexible scheduling,
often available only in poorly paid positions, while
other working mothers, although willing and able to
(45) assume as much responsibility as people without
children, find that their need to spend regular and
predictable time with their children inevitably causes
them to lose career opportunities to those without
such demands. Thus, women in education are more
(50) likely to become teachers than school administrators,
whose more conventional full-time work schedules do
not correspond to the schedules of school-age
children, while female lawyers are more likely to
practice law in trusts and estates, where they can
(55) control their work schedules, than in litigation, where
they cannot. Nonprofessional women are
concentrated in secretarial work and department
store sales, where their absences can be covered easily
by substitutes and where they can enter and leave the
(60) work force with little loss, since the jobs offer so little
personal gain. Indeed, as long as the labor market
remains hostile to parents, and family roles continue
to be allocated on the basis of gender, women will be
seriously disadvantaged in that labor market.

3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about working fathers in two-parent families?

The labor force is often organized as if workers
had no family responsibilities. Preschool-age children
need full-time care; children in primary school need
care after school and during school vacations.
(5) Although day-care services can resolve some
scheduling conflicts between home and office,
workers cannot always find or afford suitable care.
Even when they obtain such care, parents must still
cope with emergencies, such as illnesses, that keep
(10) children at home. Moreover, children need more than
tending; they also need meaningful time with their
parents. Conventional full-time workdays, especially
when combined with unavoidable household duties,
are too inflexible for parents with primary child-care
(15) responsibility.

Although a small but increasing number of
working men are single parents, those barriers against
successful participation in the labor market that are
related to primary child-care responsibilities mainly
(20) disadvantage women. Even in families where both
parents work, cultural pressures are traditionally
much greater on mothers than on fathers to bear the
primary child-rearing responsibilities.

In reconciling child-rearing responsibilities with
(25) participation in the labor market, many working
mothers are forced to make compromises. For
example, approximately one-third of all working
mothers are employed only part-time, even though
part-time jobs are dramatically underpaid and often
(30) less desirable in comparison to full-time employment.
Even though part-time work is usually available only
in occupations offering minimal employee
responsibility and little opportunity for advancement
or self-enrichment, such employment does allow
(35) many women the time and flexibility to fulfill their
family duties, but only at the expense of the
advantages associated with full-time employment.

Moreover, even mothers with full-time
employment must compromise opportunities in
(40) order to adjust to barriers against parents in the labor
market. Many choose jobs entailing little challenge or
responsibility or those offering flexible scheduling,
often available only in poorly paid positions, while
other working mothers, although willing and able to
(45) assume as much responsibility as people without
children, find that their need to spend regular and
predictable time with their children inevitably causes
them to lose career opportunities to those without
such demands. Thus, women in education are more
(50) likely to become teachers than school administrators,
whose more conventional full-time work schedules do
not correspond to the schedules of school-age
children, while female lawyers are more likely to
practice law in trusts and estates, where they can
(55) control their work schedules, than in litigation, where
they cannot. Nonprofessional women are
concentrated in secretarial work and department
store sales, where their absences can be covered easily
by substitutes and where they can enter and leave the
(60) work force with little loss, since the jobs offer so little
personal gain. Indeed, as long as the labor market
remains hostile to parents, and family roles continue
to be allocated on the basis of gender, women will be
seriously disadvantaged in that labor market.

4. Of the following, which one would the author most likely say is the most troublesome barrier facing working parents with primary child-care responsibility?

The labor force is often organized as if workers
had no family responsibilities. Preschool-age children
need full-time care; children in primary school need
care after school and during school vacations.
(5) Although day-care services can resolve some
scheduling conflicts between home and office,
workers cannot always find or afford suitable care.
Even when they obtain such care, parents must still
cope with emergencies, such as illnesses, that keep
(10) children at home. Moreover, children need more than
tending; they also need meaningful time with their
parents. Conventional full-time workdays, especially
when combined with unavoidable household duties,
are too inflexible for parents with primary child-care
(15) responsibility.

Although a small but increasing number of
working men are single parents, those barriers against
successful participation in the labor market that are
related to primary child-care responsibilities mainly
(20) disadvantage women. Even in families where both
parents work, cultural pressures are traditionally
much greater on mothers than on fathers to bear the
primary child-rearing responsibilities.

In reconciling child-rearing responsibilities with
(25) participation in the labor market, many working
mothers are forced to make compromises. For
example, approximately one-third of all working
mothers are employed only part-time, even though
part-time jobs are dramatically underpaid and often
(30) less desirable in comparison to full-time employment.
Even though part-time work is usually available only
in occupations offering minimal employee
responsibility and little opportunity for advancement
or self-enrichment, such employment does allow
(35) many women the time and flexibility to fulfill their
family duties, but only at the expense of the
advantages associated with full-time employment.

Moreover, even mothers with full-time
employment must compromise opportunities in
(40) order to adjust to barriers against parents in the labor
market. Many choose jobs entailing little challenge or
responsibility or those offering flexible scheduling,
often available only in poorly paid positions, while
other working mothers, although willing and able to
(45) assume as much responsibility as people without
children, find that their need to spend regular and
predictable time with their children inevitably causes
them to lose career opportunities to those without
such demands. Thus, women in education are more
(50) likely to become teachers than school administrators,
whose more conventional full-time work schedules do
not correspond to the schedules of school-age
children, while female lawyers are more likely to
practice law in trusts and estates, where they can
(55) control their work schedules, than in litigation, where
they cannot. Nonprofessional women are
concentrated in secretarial work and department
store sales, where their absences can be covered easily
by substitutes and where they can enter and leave the
(60) work force with little loss, since the jobs offer so little
personal gain. Indeed, as long as the labor market
remains hostile to parents, and family roles continue
to be allocated on the basis of gender, women will be
seriously disadvantaged in that labor market.

5. The passage suggests that day care is at best a limited solution to the pressures associated with child rearing for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:

The labor force is often organized as if workers
had no family responsibilities. Preschool-age children
need full-time care; children in primary school need
care after school and during school vacations.
(5) Although day-care services can resolve some
scheduling conflicts between home and office,
workers cannot always find or afford suitable care.
Even when they obtain such care, parents must still
cope with emergencies, such as illnesses, that keep
(10) children at home. Moreover, children need more than
tending; they also need meaningful time with their
parents. Conventional full-time workdays, especially
when combined with unavoidable household duties,
are too inflexible for parents with primary child-care
(15) responsibility.

Although a small but increasing number of
working men are single parents, those barriers against
successful participation in the labor market that are
related to primary child-care responsibilities mainly
(20) disadvantage women. Even in families where both
parents work, cultural pressures are traditionally
much greater on mothers than on fathers to bear the
primary child-rearing responsibilities.

In reconciling child-rearing responsibilities with
(25) participation in the labor market, many working
mothers are forced to make compromises. For
example, approximately one-third of all working
mothers are employed only part-time, even though
part-time jobs are dramatically underpaid and often
(30) less desirable in comparison to full-time employment.
Even though part-time work is usually available only
in occupations offering minimal employee
responsibility and little opportunity for advancement
or self-enrichment, such employment does allow
(35) many women the time and flexibility to fulfill their
family duties, but only at the expense of the
advantages associated with full-time employment.

Moreover, even mothers with full-time
employment must compromise opportunities in
(40) order to adjust to barriers against parents in the labor
market. Many choose jobs entailing little challenge or
responsibility or those offering flexible scheduling,
often available only in poorly paid positions, while
other working mothers, although willing and able to
(45) assume as much responsibility as people without
children, find that their need to spend regular and
predictable time with their children inevitably causes
them to lose career opportunities to those without
such demands. Thus, women in education are more
(50) likely to become teachers than school administrators,
whose more conventional full-time work schedules do
not correspond to the schedules of school-age
children, while female lawyers are more likely to
practice law in trusts and estates, where they can
(55) control their work schedules, than in litigation, where
they cannot. Nonprofessional women are
concentrated in secretarial work and department
store sales, where their absences can be covered easily
by substitutes and where they can enter and leave the
(60) work force with little loss, since the jobs offer so little
personal gain. Indeed, as long as the labor market
remains hostile to parents, and family roles continue
to be allocated on the basis of gender, women will be
seriously disadvantaged in that labor market.

6. According to the passage, many working parents may be forced to make any of the following types of career decisions EXCEPT

The labor force is often organized as if workers
had no family responsibilities. Preschool-age children
need full-time care; children in primary school need
care after school and during school vacations.
(5) Although day-care services can resolve some
scheduling conflicts between home and office,
workers cannot always find or afford suitable care.
Even when they obtain such care, parents must still
cope with emergencies, such as illnesses, that keep
(10) children at home. Moreover, children need more than
tending; they also need meaningful time with their
parents. Conventional full-time workdays, especially
when combined with unavoidable household duties,
are too inflexible for parents with primary child-care
(15) responsibility.

Although a small but increasing number of
working men are single parents, those barriers against
successful participation in the labor market that are
related to primary child-care responsibilities mainly
(20) disadvantage women. Even in families where both
parents work, cultural pressures are traditionally
much greater on mothers than on fathers to bear the
primary child-rearing responsibilities.

In reconciling child-rearing responsibilities with
(25) participation in the labor market, many working
mothers are forced to make compromises. For
example, approximately one-third of all working
mothers are employed only part-time, even though
part-time jobs are dramatically underpaid and often
(30) less desirable in comparison to full-time employment.
Even though part-time work is usually available only
in occupations offering minimal employee
responsibility and little opportunity for advancement
or self-enrichment, such employment does allow
(35) many women the time and flexibility to fulfill their
family duties, but only at the expense of the
advantages associated with full-time employment.

Moreover, even mothers with full-time
employment must compromise opportunities in
(40) order to adjust to barriers against parents in the labor
market. Many choose jobs entailing little challenge or
responsibility or those offering flexible scheduling,
often available only in poorly paid positions, while
other working mothers, although willing and able to
(45) assume as much responsibility as people without
children, find that their need to spend regular and
predictable time with their children inevitably causes
them to lose career opportunities to those without
such demands. Thus, women in education are more
(50) likely to become teachers than school administrators,
whose more conventional full-time work schedules do
not correspond to the schedules of school-age
children, while female lawyers are more likely to
practice law in trusts and estates, where they can
(55) control their work schedules, than in litigation, where
they cannot. Nonprofessional women are
concentrated in secretarial work and department
store sales, where their absences can be covered easily
by substitutes and where they can enter and leave the
(60) work force with little loss, since the jobs offer so little
personal gain. Indeed, as long as the labor market
remains hostile to parents, and family roles continue
to be allocated on the basis of gender, women will be
seriously disadvantaged in that labor market.

7. Which one of the following statements would most appropriately continue the discussion at the end of the passage?

The labor force is often organized as if workers
had no family responsibilities. Preschool-age children
need full-time care; children in primary school need
care after school and during school vacations.
(5) Although day-care services can resolve some
scheduling conflicts between home and office,
workers cannot always find or afford suitable care.
Even when they obtain such care, parents must still
cope with emergencies, such as illnesses, that keep
(10) children at home. Moreover, children need more than
tending; they also need meaningful time with their
parents. Conventional full-time workdays, especially
when combined with unavoidable household duties,
are too inflexible for parents with primary child-care
(15) responsibility.

Although a small but increasing number of
working men are single parents, those barriers against
successful participation in the labor market that are
related to primary child-care responsibilities mainly
(20) disadvantage women. Even in families where both
parents work, cultural pressures are traditionally
much greater on mothers than on fathers to bear the
primary child-rearing responsibilities.

In reconciling child-rearing responsibilities with
(25) participation in the labor market, many working
mothers are forced to make compromises. For
example, approximately one-third of all working
mothers are employed only part-time, even though
part-time jobs are dramatically underpaid and often
(30) less desirable in comparison to full-time employment.
Even though part-time work is usually available only
in occupations offering minimal employee
responsibility and little opportunity for advancement
or self-enrichment, such employment does allow
(35) many women the time and flexibility to fulfill their
family duties, but only at the expense of the
advantages associated with full-time employment.

Moreover, even mothers with full-time
employment must compromise opportunities in
(40) order to adjust to barriers against parents in the labor
market. Many choose jobs entailing little challenge or
responsibility or those offering flexible scheduling,
often available only in poorly paid positions, while
other working mothers, although willing and able to
(45) assume as much responsibility as people without
children, find that their need to spend regular and
predictable time with their children inevitably causes
them to lose career opportunities to those without
such demands. Thus, women in education are more
(50) likely to become teachers than school administrators,
whose more conventional full-time work schedules do
not correspond to the schedules of school-age
children, while female lawyers are more likely to
practice law in trusts and estates, where they can
(55) control their work schedules, than in litigation, where
they cannot. Nonprofessional women are
concentrated in secretarial work and department
store sales, where their absences can be covered easily
by substitutes and where they can enter and leave the
(60) work force with little loss, since the jobs offer so little
personal gain. Indeed, as long as the labor market
remains hostile to parents, and family roles continue
to be allocated on the basis of gender, women will be
seriously disadvantaged in that labor market.

8. The primary purpose of the passage is to

Critics have long been puzzled by the inner
contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s
tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance,
the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious
(5) tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but
“bad”in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her
family and in making religion a “cloak” hiding
worldly self-indulgence. Bosola is “bad” in serving
Ferdinand,“good”in turning the Duchess’ thoughts
(10) toward heaven and in planning to avenge her
murder. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
implied that such contradictions are virtually
essential to the tragic personality, and yet critics keep
coming back to this element of inconsistency as
(15) though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own
tragic vision.

The problem is that, as an Elizabethan
playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our
critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years,
(20) been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and
medieval theater, particularly the morality play,
illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand
how the habit of mind that saw the world as a
battleground between good and evil produced the
(25) morality play. Morality plays allegorized that conflict
by presenting characters whose actions were defined
as the embodiment of good or evil. This model of
reality lived on, overlaid by different conventions, in
the more sophisticated Elizabethan works of the
(30) following age. Yet Webster seems not to have been as
heavily influenced by the morality play’s model of
reality as were his Elizabethan contemporaries; he
was apparently more sensitive to the more morally
complicated Italian drama than to these English
(35) sources. Consequently, his characters cannot be
evaluated according to reductive formulas of good
and evil, which is precisely what modern critics have
tried to do. They choose what seem to be the most
promising of the contradictory values that are
(40) dramatized in the play, and treat those values as if
they were the only basis for analyzing the moral
development of the play’s major characters,
attributing the inconsistencies in a character’s
behavior to artistic incompetence on Webster’s part.
(45) The lack of consistency in Webster’s characters can
be better understood if we recognize that the
ambiguity at the heart of his tragic vision lies not in
the external world but in the duality of human
nature. Webster establishes tension in his plays by
(50) setting up conflicting systems of value that appear
immoral only when one value system is viewed
exclusively from the perspective of the other. He
presents us not only with characters that we
condemn intellectually or ethically and at the same
(55) time impulsively approve of, but also with judgments
we must accept as logically sound and yet find
emotionally repulsive. The dilemma is not only
dramatic: it is tragic, because the conflict is
irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that
(60) of the characters.

9. The author suggests which one of the following about the dramatic works that most influenced Webster’s tragedies?

Critics have long been puzzled by the inner
contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s
tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance,
the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious
(5) tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but
“bad”in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her
family and in making religion a “cloak” hiding
worldly self-indulgence. Bosola is “bad” in serving
Ferdinand,“good”in turning the Duchess’ thoughts
(10) toward heaven and in planning to avenge her
murder. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
implied that such contradictions are virtually
essential to the tragic personality, and yet critics keep
coming back to this element of inconsistency as
(15) though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own
tragic vision.

The problem is that, as an Elizabethan
playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our
critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years,
(20) been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and
medieval theater, particularly the morality play,
illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand
how the habit of mind that saw the world as a
battleground between good and evil produced the
(25) morality play. Morality plays allegorized that conflict
by presenting characters whose actions were defined
as the embodiment of good or evil. This model of
reality lived on, overlaid by different conventions, in
the more sophisticated Elizabethan works of the
(30) following age. Yet Webster seems not to have been as
heavily influenced by the morality play’s model of
reality as were his Elizabethan contemporaries; he
was apparently more sensitive to the more morally
complicated Italian drama than to these English
(35) sources. Consequently, his characters cannot be
evaluated according to reductive formulas of good
and evil, which is precisely what modern critics have
tried to do. They choose what seem to be the most
promising of the contradictory values that are
(40) dramatized in the play, and treat those values as if
they were the only basis for analyzing the moral
development of the play’s major characters,
attributing the inconsistencies in a character’s
behavior to artistic incompetence on Webster’s part.
(45) The lack of consistency in Webster’s characters can
be better understood if we recognize that the
ambiguity at the heart of his tragic vision lies not in
the external world but in the duality of human
nature. Webster establishes tension in his plays by
(50) setting up conflicting systems of value that appear
immoral only when one value system is viewed
exclusively from the perspective of the other. He
presents us not only with characters that we
condemn intellectually or ethically and at the same
(55) time impulsively approve of, but also with judgments
we must accept as logically sound and yet find
emotionally repulsive. The dilemma is not only
dramatic: it is tragic, because the conflict is
irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that
(60) of the characters.

10. The author’s allusion to Aristotle’s view of tragedy in lines 11–13 serves which one of the following functions in the passage?

Critics have long been puzzled by the inner
contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s
tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance,
the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious
(5) tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but
“bad”in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her
family and in making religion a “cloak” hiding
worldly self-indulgence. Bosola is “bad” in serving
Ferdinand,“good”in turning the Duchess’ thoughts
(10) toward heaven and in planning to avenge her
murder. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
implied that such contradictions are virtually
essential to the tragic personality, and yet critics keep
coming back to this element of inconsistency as
(15) though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own
tragic vision.

The problem is that, as an Elizabethan
playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our
critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years,
(20) been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and
medieval theater, particularly the morality play,
illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand
how the habit of mind that saw the world as a
battleground between good and evil produced the
(25) morality play. Morality plays allegorized that conflict
by presenting characters whose actions were defined
as the embodiment of good or evil. This model of
reality lived on, overlaid by different conventions, in
the more sophisticated Elizabethan works of the
(30) following age. Yet Webster seems not to have been as
heavily influenced by the morality play’s model of
reality as were his Elizabethan contemporaries; he
was apparently more sensitive to the more morally
complicated Italian drama than to these English
(35) sources. Consequently, his characters cannot be
evaluated according to reductive formulas of good
and evil, which is precisely what modern critics have
tried to do. They choose what seem to be the most
promising of the contradictory values that are
(40) dramatized in the play, and treat those values as if
they were the only basis for analyzing the moral
development of the play’s major characters,
attributing the inconsistencies in a character’s
behavior to artistic incompetence on Webster’s part.
(45) The lack of consistency in Webster’s characters can
be better understood if we recognize that the
ambiguity at the heart of his tragic vision lies not in
the external world but in the duality of human
nature. Webster establishes tension in his plays by
(50) setting up conflicting systems of value that appear
immoral only when one value system is viewed
exclusively from the perspective of the other. He
presents us not only with characters that we
condemn intellectually or ethically and at the same
(55) time impulsively approve of, but also with judgments
we must accept as logically sound and yet find
emotionally repulsive. The dilemma is not only
dramatic: it is tragic, because the conflict is
irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that
(60) of the characters.

11. It can be inferred from the passage that modern critics’ interpretations of Webster’s tragedies would be more valid if

Critics have long been puzzled by the inner
contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s
tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance,
the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious
(5) tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but
“bad”in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her
family and in making religion a “cloak” hiding
worldly self-indulgence. Bosola is “bad” in serving
Ferdinand,“good”in turning the Duchess’ thoughts
(10) toward heaven and in planning to avenge her
murder. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
implied that such contradictions are virtually
essential to the tragic personality, and yet critics keep
coming back to this element of inconsistency as
(15) though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own
tragic vision.

The problem is that, as an Elizabethan
playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our
critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years,
(20) been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and
medieval theater, particularly the morality play,
illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand
how the habit of mind that saw the world as a
battleground between good and evil produced the
(25) morality play. Morality plays allegorized that conflict
by presenting characters whose actions were defined
as the embodiment of good or evil. This model of
reality lived on, overlaid by different conventions, in
the more sophisticated Elizabethan works of the
(30) following age. Yet Webster seems not to have been as
heavily influenced by the morality play’s model of
reality as were his Elizabethan contemporaries; he
was apparently more sensitive to the more morally
complicated Italian drama than to these English
(35) sources. Consequently, his characters cannot be
evaluated according to reductive formulas of good
and evil, which is precisely what modern critics have
tried to do. They choose what seem to be the most
promising of the contradictory values that are
(40) dramatized in the play, and treat those values as if
they were the only basis for analyzing the moral
development of the play’s major characters,
attributing the inconsistencies in a character’s
behavior to artistic incompetence on Webster’s part.
(45) The lack of consistency in Webster’s characters can
be better understood if we recognize that the
ambiguity at the heart of his tragic vision lies not in
the external world but in the duality of human
nature. Webster establishes tension in his plays by
(50) setting up conflicting systems of value that appear
immoral only when one value system is viewed
exclusively from the perspective of the other. He
presents us not only with characters that we
condemn intellectually or ethically and at the same
(55) time impulsively approve of, but also with judgments
we must accept as logically sound and yet find
emotionally repulsive. The dilemma is not only
dramatic: it is tragic, because the conflict is
irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that
(60) of the characters.

12. With which one of the following statements regarding Elizabethan drama would the author be most likely to agree?

Critics have long been puzzled by the inner
contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s
tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance,
the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious
(5) tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but
“bad”in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her
family and in making religion a “cloak” hiding
worldly self-indulgence. Bosola is “bad” in serving
Ferdinand,“good”in turning the Duchess’ thoughts
(10) toward heaven and in planning to avenge her
murder. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
implied that such contradictions are virtually
essential to the tragic personality, and yet critics keep
coming back to this element of inconsistency as
(15) though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own
tragic vision.

The problem is that, as an Elizabethan
playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our
critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years,
(20) been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and
medieval theater, particularly the morality play,
illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand
how the habit of mind that saw the world as a
battleground between good and evil produced the
(25) morality play. Morality plays allegorized that conflict
by presenting characters whose actions were defined
as the embodiment of good or evil. This model of
reality lived on, overlaid by different conventions, in
the more sophisticated Elizabethan works of the
(30) following age. Yet Webster seems not to have been as
heavily influenced by the morality play’s model of
reality as were his Elizabethan contemporaries; he
was apparently more sensitive to the more morally
complicated Italian drama than to these English
(35) sources. Consequently, his characters cannot be
evaluated according to reductive formulas of good
and evil, which is precisely what modern critics have
tried to do. They choose what seem to be the most
promising of the contradictory values that are
(40) dramatized in the play, and treat those values as if
they were the only basis for analyzing the moral
development of the play’s major characters,
attributing the inconsistencies in a character’s
behavior to artistic incompetence on Webster’s part.
(45) The lack of consistency in Webster’s characters can
be better understood if we recognize that the
ambiguity at the heart of his tragic vision lies not in
the external world but in the duality of human
nature. Webster establishes tension in his plays by
(50) setting up conflicting systems of value that appear
immoral only when one value system is viewed
exclusively from the perspective of the other. He
presents us not only with characters that we
condemn intellectually or ethically and at the same
(55) time impulsively approve of, but also with judgments
we must accept as logically sound and yet find
emotionally repulsive. The dilemma is not only
dramatic: it is tragic, because the conflict is
irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that
(60) of the characters.

13. It can be inferred from the passage that most modern critics assume which one of the following in their interpretation of Webster’s tragedies?

Critics have long been puzzled by the inner
contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s
tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance,
the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious
(5) tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but
“bad”in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her
family and in making religion a “cloak” hiding
worldly self-indulgence. Bosola is “bad” in serving
Ferdinand,“good”in turning the Duchess’ thoughts
(10) toward heaven and in planning to avenge her
murder. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
implied that such contradictions are virtually
essential to the tragic personality, and yet critics keep
coming back to this element of inconsistency as
(15) though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own
tragic vision.

The problem is that, as an Elizabethan
playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our
critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years,
(20) been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and
medieval theater, particularly the morality play,
illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand
how the habit of mind that saw the world as a
battleground between good and evil produced the
(25) morality play. Morality plays allegorized that conflict
by presenting characters whose actions were defined
as the embodiment of good or evil. This model of
reality lived on, overlaid by different conventions, in
the more sophisticated Elizabethan works of the
(30) following age. Yet Webster seems not to have been as
heavily influenced by the morality play’s model of
reality as were his Elizabethan contemporaries; he
was apparently more sensitive to the more morally
complicated Italian drama than to these English
(35) sources. Consequently, his characters cannot be
evaluated according to reductive formulas of good
and evil, which is precisely what modern critics have
tried to do. They choose what seem to be the most
promising of the contradictory values that are
(40) dramatized in the play, and treat those values as if
they were the only basis for analyzing the moral
development of the play’s major characters,
attributing the inconsistencies in a character’s
behavior to artistic incompetence on Webster’s part.
(45) The lack of consistency in Webster’s characters can
be better understood if we recognize that the
ambiguity at the heart of his tragic vision lies not in
the external world but in the duality of human
nature. Webster establishes tension in his plays by
(50) setting up conflicting systems of value that appear
immoral only when one value system is viewed
exclusively from the perspective of the other. He
presents us not only with characters that we
condemn intellectually or ethically and at the same
(55) time impulsively approve of, but also with judgments
we must accept as logically sound and yet find
emotionally repulsive. The dilemma is not only
dramatic: it is tragic, because the conflict is
irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that
(60) of the characters.

14. The author implies that Webster’s conception of tragedy was

Critics have long been puzzled by the inner
contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s
tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance,
the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious
(5) tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but
“bad”in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her
family and in making religion a “cloak” hiding
worldly self-indulgence. Bosola is “bad” in serving
Ferdinand,“good”in turning the Duchess’ thoughts
(10) toward heaven and in planning to avenge her
murder. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
implied that such contradictions are virtually
essential to the tragic personality, and yet critics keep
coming back to this element of inconsistency as
(15) though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own
tragic vision.

The problem is that, as an Elizabethan
playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our
critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years,
(20) been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and
medieval theater, particularly the morality play,
illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand
how the habit of mind that saw the world as a
battleground between good and evil produced the
(25) morality play. Morality plays allegorized that conflict
by presenting characters whose actions were defined
as the embodiment of good or evil. This model of
reality lived on, overlaid by different conventions, in
the more sophisticated Elizabethan works of the
(30) following age. Yet Webster seems not to have been as
heavily influenced by the morality play’s model of
reality as were his Elizabethan contemporaries; he
was apparently more sensitive to the more morally
complicated Italian drama than to these English
(35) sources. Consequently, his characters cannot be
evaluated according to reductive formulas of good
and evil, which is precisely what modern critics have
tried to do. They choose what seem to be the most
promising of the contradictory values that are
(40) dramatized in the play, and treat those values as if
they were the only basis for analyzing the moral
development of the play’s major characters,
attributing the inconsistencies in a character’s
behavior to artistic incompetence on Webster’s part.
(45) The lack of consistency in Webster’s characters can
be better understood if we recognize that the
ambiguity at the heart of his tragic vision lies not in
the external world but in the duality of human
nature. Webster establishes tension in his plays by
(50) setting up conflicting systems of value that appear
immoral only when one value system is viewed
exclusively from the perspective of the other. He
presents us not only with characters that we
condemn intellectually or ethically and at the same
(55) time impulsively approve of, but also with judgments
we must accept as logically sound and yet find
emotionally repulsive. The dilemma is not only
dramatic: it is tragic, because the conflict is
irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that
(60) of the characters.

15. Which one of the following best summarizes the main idea of the passage?

Cultivation of a single crop on a given tract of
land leads eventually to decreased yields. One reason
for this is that harmful bacterial phytopathogens,
organisms parasitic on plant hosts, increase in the
(5) soil surrounding plant roots. The problem can be
cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a
suitable host for a period of time. However, even if
crops are not rotated, the severity of diseases
brought on by such phytopathogens often decreases
(10) after a number or years as the microbial population
of the soil changes and the soil becomes
“suppressive” to those diseases. While there may be
many reasons for this phenomenon, it is clear that
levels of certain bacteria, such as Pseudomonas
(15) fluorescens, a bacterium antagonistic to a number of
harmful phytopathogens, are greater in suppressive
than in nonsuppressive soil. This suggests that the
presence of such bacteria suppresses
phytopathogens. There is now considerable
(20) experimental support for this view. Wheat yield
increases of 27 percent have been obtained in field
trials by treatment of wheat seeds with fluorescent
pseudomonads. Similar treatment of sugar beets,
cotton, and potatoes has had similar results.

(25) These improvements in crop yields through the
application of Pseudomonas fluorescens suggest that
agriculture could benefit from the use of bacteria
genetically altered for specific purposes. For example,
a form of phytopathogen altered to remove its
(30) harmful properties could be released into the
environment in quantities favorable to its competing
with and eventually excluding the harmful normal
strain. Some experiments suggest that deliberately
releasing altered nonpathogenic Pseudomonas
(35) syringae could crowd out the nonaltered variety that
causes frost damage. Opponents of such research have
objected that the deliberate and large-scale release of
genetically altered bacteria might have deleterious
results. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that this
(40) particular strain is altered only by the removal of the
gene responsible for the strain’s propensity to cause
frost damage, thereby rendering it safer than the
phytopathogen from which it was derived.

Some proponents have gone further and suggest
(45) that genetic alteration techniques could create
organisms with totally new combinations of desirable
traits not found in nature. For example, genes
responsible for production of insecticidal compounds
have been transposed from other bacteria into
(50) pseudomonads that colonize corn roots. Experiments
of this kind are difficult and require great care: such
bacteria are developed in highly artificial
environments and may not compete well with natural
soil bacteria. Nevertheless, proponents contend that
(55) the prospects for improved agriculture through such
methods seem excellent. These prospects lead many
to hope that current efforts to assess the risks of
deliberate release of altered microorganisms will
successfully answer the concerns of opponents and
(60) create a climate in which such research can go
forward without undue impediment.

16. The author discusses naturally occurring Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria in the first paragraph primarily in order to do which one of the following?

Cultivation of a single crop on a given tract of
land leads eventually to decreased yields. One reason
for this is that harmful bacterial phytopathogens,
organisms parasitic on plant hosts, increase in the
(5) soil surrounding plant roots. The problem can be
cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a
suitable host for a period of time. However, even if
crops are not rotated, the severity of diseases
brought on by such phytopathogens often decreases
(10) after a number or years as the microbial population
of the soil changes and the soil becomes
“suppressive” to those diseases. While there may be
many reasons for this phenomenon, it is clear that
levels of certain bacteria, such as Pseudomonas
(15) fluorescens, a bacterium antagonistic to a number of
harmful phytopathogens, are greater in suppressive
than in nonsuppressive soil. This suggests that the
presence of such bacteria suppresses
phytopathogens. There is now considerable
(20) experimental support for this view. Wheat yield
increases of 27 percent have been obtained in field
trials by treatment of wheat seeds with fluorescent
pseudomonads. Similar treatment of sugar beets,
cotton, and potatoes has had similar results.

(25) These improvements in crop yields through the
application of Pseudomonas fluorescens suggest that
agriculture could benefit from the use of bacteria
genetically altered for specific purposes. For example,
a form of phytopathogen altered to remove its
(30) harmful properties could be released into the
environment in quantities favorable to its competing
with and eventually excluding the harmful normal
strain. Some experiments suggest that deliberately
releasing altered nonpathogenic Pseudomonas
(35) syringae could crowd out the nonaltered variety that
causes frost damage. Opponents of such research have
objected that the deliberate and large-scale release of
genetically altered bacteria might have deleterious
results. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that this
(40) particular strain is altered only by the removal of the
gene responsible for the strain’s propensity to cause
frost damage, thereby rendering it safer than the
phytopathogen from which it was derived.

Some proponents have gone further and suggest
(45) that genetic alteration techniques could create
organisms with totally new combinations of desirable
traits not found in nature. For example, genes
responsible for production of insecticidal compounds
have been transposed from other bacteria into
(50) pseudomonads that colonize corn roots. Experiments
of this kind are difficult and require great care: such
bacteria are developed in highly artificial
environments and may not compete well with natural
soil bacteria. Nevertheless, proponents contend that
(55) the prospects for improved agriculture through such
methods seem excellent. These prospects lead many
to hope that current efforts to assess the risks of
deliberate release of altered microorganisms will
successfully answer the concerns of opponents and
(60) create a climate in which such research can go
forward without undue impediment.

17. It can be inferred from the author’s discussion of Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria that which one of the following would be true of crops impervious to parasitical organisms?

Cultivation of a single crop on a given tract of
land leads eventually to decreased yields. One reason
for this is that harmful bacterial phytopathogens,
organisms parasitic on plant hosts, increase in the
(5) soil surrounding plant roots. The problem can be
cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a
suitable host for a period of time. However, even if
crops are not rotated, the severity of diseases
brought on by such phytopathogens often decreases
(10) after a number or years as the microbial population
of the soil changes and the soil becomes
“suppressive” to those diseases. While there may be
many reasons for this phenomenon, it is clear that
levels of certain bacteria, such as Pseudomonas
(15) fluorescens, a bacterium antagonistic to a number of
harmful phytopathogens, are greater in suppressive
than in nonsuppressive soil. This suggests that the
presence of such bacteria suppresses
phytopathogens. There is now considerable
(20) experimental support for this view. Wheat yield
increases of 27 percent have been obtained in field
trials by treatment of wheat seeds with fluorescent
pseudomonads. Similar treatment of sugar beets,
cotton, and potatoes has had similar results.

(25) These improvements in crop yields through the
application of Pseudomonas fluorescens suggest that
agriculture could benefit from the use of bacteria
genetically altered for specific purposes. For example,
a form of phytopathogen altered to remove its
(30) harmful properties could be released into the
environment in quantities favorable to its competing
with and eventually excluding the harmful normal
strain. Some experiments suggest that deliberately
releasing altered nonpathogenic Pseudomonas
(35) syringae could crowd out the nonaltered variety that
causes frost damage. Opponents of such research have
objected that the deliberate and large-scale release of
genetically altered bacteria might have deleterious
results. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that this
(40) particular strain is altered only by the removal of the
gene responsible for the strain’s propensity to cause
frost damage, thereby rendering it safer than the
phytopathogen from which it was derived.

Some proponents have gone further and suggest
(45) that genetic alteration techniques could create
organisms with totally new combinations of desirable
traits not found in nature. For example, genes
responsible for production of insecticidal compounds
have been transposed from other bacteria into
(50) pseudomonads that colonize corn roots. Experiments
of this kind are difficult and require great care: such
bacteria are developed in highly artificial
environments and may not compete well with natural
soil bacteria. Nevertheless, proponents contend that
(55) the prospects for improved agriculture through such
methods seem excellent. These prospects lead many
to hope that current efforts to assess the risks of
deliberate release of altered microorganisms will
successfully answer the concerns of opponents and
(60) create a climate in which such research can go
forward without undue impediment.

18. It can be inferred from the passage that crop rotation can increase yields in part because

Cultivation of a single crop on a given tract of
land leads eventually to decreased yields. One reason
for this is that harmful bacterial phytopathogens,
organisms parasitic on plant hosts, increase in the
(5) soil surrounding plant roots. The problem can be
cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a
suitable host for a period of time. However, even if
crops are not rotated, the severity of diseases
brought on by such phytopathogens often decreases
(10) after a number or years as the microbial population
of the soil changes and the soil becomes
“suppressive” to those diseases. While there may be
many reasons for this phenomenon, it is clear that
levels of certain bacteria, such as Pseudomonas
(15) fluorescens, a bacterium antagonistic to a number of
harmful phytopathogens, are greater in suppressive
than in nonsuppressive soil. This suggests that the
presence of such bacteria suppresses
phytopathogens. There is now considerable
(20) experimental support for this view. Wheat yield
increases of 27 percent have been obtained in field
trials by treatment of wheat seeds with fluorescent
pseudomonads. Similar treatment of sugar beets,
cotton, and potatoes has had similar results.

(25) These improvements in crop yields through the
application of Pseudomonas fluorescens suggest that
agriculture could benefit from the use of bacteria
genetically altered for specific purposes. For example,
a form of phytopathogen altered to remove its
(30) harmful properties could be released into the
environment in quantities favorable to its competing
with and eventually excluding the harmful normal
strain. Some experiments suggest that deliberately
releasing altered nonpathogenic Pseudomonas
(35) syringae could crowd out the nonaltered variety that
causes frost damage. Opponents of such research have
objected that the deliberate and large-scale release of
genetically altered bacteria might have deleterious
results. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that this
(40) particular strain is altered only by the removal of the
gene responsible for the strain’s propensity to cause
frost damage, thereby rendering it safer than the
phytopathogen from which it was derived.

Some proponents have gone further and suggest
(45) that genetic alteration techniques could create
organisms with totally new combinations of desirable
traits not found in nature. For example, genes
responsible for production of insecticidal compounds
have been transposed from other bacteria into
(50) pseudomonads that colonize corn roots. Experiments
of this kind are difficult and require great care: such
bacteria are developed in highly artificial
environments and may not compete well with natural
soil bacteria. Nevertheless, proponents contend that
(55) the prospects for improved agriculture through such
methods seem excellent. These prospects lead many
to hope that current efforts to assess the risks of
deliberate release of altered microorganisms will
successfully answer the concerns of opponents and
(60) create a climate in which such research can go
forward without undue impediment.

19. According to the passage, proponents of the use of genetically altered bacteria in agriculture argue that which one of the following is true of the altered bacteria used in the frost-damage experiments?

Cultivation of a single crop on a given tract of
land leads eventually to decreased yields. One reason
for this is that harmful bacterial phytopathogens,
organisms parasitic on plant hosts, increase in the
(5) soil surrounding plant roots. The problem can be
cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a
suitable host for a period of time. However, even if
crops are not rotated, the severity of diseases
brought on by such phytopathogens often decreases
(10) after a number or years as the microbial population
of the soil changes and the soil becomes
“suppressive” to those diseases. While there may be
many reasons for this phenomenon, it is clear that
levels of certain bacteria, such as Pseudomonas
(15) fluorescens, a bacterium antagonistic to a number of
harmful phytopathogens, are greater in suppressive
than in nonsuppressive soil. This suggests that the
presence of such bacteria suppresses
phytopathogens. There is now considerable
(20) experimental support for this view. Wheat yield
increases of 27 percent have been obtained in field
trials by treatment of wheat seeds with fluorescent
pseudomonads. Similar treatment of sugar beets,
cotton, and potatoes has had similar results.

(25) These improvements in crop yields through the
application of Pseudomonas fluorescens suggest that
agriculture could benefit from the use of bacteria
genetically altered for specific purposes. For example,
a form of phytopathogen altered to remove its
(30) harmful properties could be released into the
environment in quantities favorable to its competing
with and eventually excluding the harmful normal
strain. Some experiments suggest that deliberately
releasing altered nonpathogenic Pseudomonas
(35) syringae could crowd out the nonaltered variety that
causes frost damage. Opponents of such research have
objected that the deliberate and large-scale release of
genetically altered bacteria might have deleterious
results. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that this
(40) particular strain is altered only by the removal of the
gene responsible for the strain’s propensity to cause
frost damage, thereby rendering it safer than the
phytopathogen from which it was derived.

Some proponents have gone further and suggest
(45) that genetic alteration techniques could create
organisms with totally new combinations of desirable
traits not found in nature. For example, genes
responsible for production of insecticidal compounds
have been transposed from other bacteria into
(50) pseudomonads that colonize corn roots. Experiments
of this kind are difficult and require great care: such
bacteria are developed in highly artificial
environments and may not compete well with natural
soil bacteria. Nevertheless, proponents contend that
(55) the prospects for improved agriculture through such
methods seem excellent. These prospects lead many
to hope that current efforts to assess the risks of
deliberate release of altered microorganisms will
successfully answer the concerns of opponents and
(60) create a climate in which such research can go
forward without undue impediment.

20. Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the proponents’ argument regarding the safety of using altered Pseudomonas syringae bacteria to control frost damage?

Cultivation of a single crop on a given tract of
land leads eventually to decreased yields. One reason
for this is that harmful bacterial phytopathogens,
organisms parasitic on plant hosts, increase in the
(5) soil surrounding plant roots. The problem can be
cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a
suitable host for a period of time. However, even if
crops are not rotated, the severity of diseases
brought on by such phytopathogens often decreases
(10) after a number or years as the microbial population
of the soil changes and the soil becomes
“suppressive” to those diseases. While there may be
many reasons for this phenomenon, it is clear that
levels of certain bacteria, such as Pseudomonas
(15) fluorescens, a bacterium antagonistic to a number of
harmful phytopathogens, are greater in suppressive
than in nonsuppressive soil. This suggests that the
presence of such bacteria suppresses
phytopathogens. There is now considerable
(20) experimental support for this view. Wheat yield
increases of 27 percent have been obtained in field
trials by treatment of wheat seeds with fluorescent
pseudomonads. Similar treatment of sugar beets,
cotton, and potatoes has had similar results.

(25) These improvements in crop yields through the
application of Pseudomonas fluorescens suggest that
agriculture could benefit from the use of bacteria
genetically altered for specific purposes. For example,
a form of phytopathogen altered to remove its
(30) harmful properties could be released into the
environment in quantities favorable to its competing
with and eventually excluding the harmful normal
strain. Some experiments suggest that deliberately
releasing altered nonpathogenic Pseudomonas
(35) syringae could crowd out the nonaltered variety that
causes frost damage. Opponents of such research have
objected that the deliberate and large-scale release of
genetically altered bacteria might have deleterious
results. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that this
(40) particular strain is altered only by the removal of the
gene responsible for the strain’s propensity to cause
frost damage, thereby rendering it safer than the
phytopathogen from which it was derived.

Some proponents have gone further and suggest
(45) that genetic alteration techniques could create
organisms with totally new combinations of desirable
traits not found in nature. For example, genes
responsible for production of insecticidal compounds
have been transposed from other bacteria into
(50) pseudomonads that colonize corn roots. Experiments
of this kind are difficult and require great care: such
bacteria are developed in highly artificial
environments and may not compete well with natural
soil bacteria. Nevertheless, proponents contend that
(55) the prospects for improved agriculture through such
methods seem excellent. These prospects lead many
to hope that current efforts to assess the risks of
deliberate release of altered microorganisms will
successfully answer the concerns of opponents and
(60) create a climate in which such research can go
forward without undue impediment.

21. Which one of the following best summarizes the main idea of the passage?

In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale
private ownership of reservation lands in the United
States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of
80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the
(5) Native Americans were not granted outright title to
their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust
patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the governmental agency in charge of
administering policy regarding Native Americans,
(10) would hold the allotted land in trust for 25 years,
during which time the Native American owners
could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the
25-year period, the Native American allottee would
receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership
(15) of the land.

Two main reasons were advanced for the
restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell
their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability
would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts
(20) of former reservation land to non-Native Americans,
consequently threatening the traditional way of life
on those reservations. A second objection to free
alienation was that Native Americans were
unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of
(25) private landownership. Their custom, it was said,
favored communal use of land.

However, both of these arguments bear only on
the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native
Americans; neither offers a reason for prohibiting
(30) Native Americans from transferring land among
themselves. Selling land to each other would not
threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if
communal land use remained preferable to Native
Americans after allotment, free alienability would have
(35) allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.

When stated rationales for government policies
prove empty, using an interest-group model often
provides an explanation. While neither Native
Americans nor the potential non-Native American
(40) purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation
contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group
did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been
convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to
maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in
(45) order to compensate for the lack of other sources of
fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally,
politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental
bureaucracy because such growth provides increased
opportunity for the exercise of political patronage.
(50) The restraint on alienation vastly increased the
amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to
implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in
1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native
American lands were among the principal activities of
(55) the United States government. One hypothesis, then,
for the temporary restriction on alienation in the
Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between
non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability
so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats
(60) who administered the privatization system.

22. Which one of the following statements concerning the reason for the end of allotment, if true, would provide the most support for the author’s view of politicians?

In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale
private ownership of reservation lands in the United
States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of
80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the
(5) Native Americans were not granted outright title to
their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust
patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the governmental agency in charge of
administering policy regarding Native Americans,
(10) would hold the allotted land in trust for 25 years,
during which time the Native American owners
could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the
25-year period, the Native American allottee would
receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership
(15) of the land.

Two main reasons were advanced for the
restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell
their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability
would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts
(20) of former reservation land to non-Native Americans,
consequently threatening the traditional way of life
on those reservations. A second objection to free
alienation was that Native Americans were
unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of
(25) private landownership. Their custom, it was said,
favored communal use of land.

However, both of these arguments bear only on
the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native
Americans; neither offers a reason for prohibiting
(30) Native Americans from transferring land among
themselves. Selling land to each other would not
threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if
communal land use remained preferable to Native
Americans after allotment, free alienability would have
(35) allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.

When stated rationales for government policies
prove empty, using an interest-group model often
provides an explanation. While neither Native
Americans nor the potential non-Native American
(40) purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation
contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group
did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been
convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to
maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in
(45) order to compensate for the lack of other sources of
fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally,
politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental
bureaucracy because such growth provides increased
opportunity for the exercise of political patronage.
(50) The restraint on alienation vastly increased the
amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to
implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in
1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native
American lands were among the principal activities of
(55) the United States government. One hypothesis, then,
for the temporary restriction on alienation in the
Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between
non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability
so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats
(60) who administered the privatization system.

23. Which one of the following best describes the organization of the passage?

In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale
private ownership of reservation lands in the United
States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of
80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the
(5) Native Americans were not granted outright title to
their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust
patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the governmental agency in charge of
administering policy regarding Native Americans,
(10) would hold the allotted land in trust for 25 years,
during which time the Native American owners
could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the
25-year period, the Native American allottee would
receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership
(15) of the land.

Two main reasons were advanced for the
restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell
their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability
would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts
(20) of former reservation land to non-Native Americans,
consequently threatening the traditional way of life
on those reservations. A second objection to free
alienation was that Native Americans were
unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of
(25) private landownership. Their custom, it was said,
favored communal use of land.

However, both of these arguments bear only on
the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native
Americans; neither offers a reason for prohibiting
(30) Native Americans from transferring land among
themselves. Selling land to each other would not
threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if
communal land use remained preferable to Native
Americans after allotment, free alienability would have
(35) allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.

When stated rationales for government policies
prove empty, using an interest-group model often
provides an explanation. While neither Native
Americans nor the potential non-Native American
(40) purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation
contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group
did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been
convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to
maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in
(45) order to compensate for the lack of other sources of
fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally,
politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental
bureaucracy because such growth provides increased
opportunity for the exercise of political patronage.
(50) The restraint on alienation vastly increased the
amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to
implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in
1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native
American lands were among the principal activities of
(55) the United States government. One hypothesis, then,
for the temporary restriction on alienation in the
Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between
non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability
so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats
(60) who administered the privatization system.

24. The author’s attitude toward the reasons advanced for the restriction on alienability in the Dawes Act at the time of its passage can best be described as

In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale
private ownership of reservation lands in the United
States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of
80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the
(5) Native Americans were not granted outright title to
their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust
patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the governmental agency in charge of
administering policy regarding Native Americans,
(10) would hold the allotted land in trust for 25 years,
during which time the Native American owners
could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the
25-year period, the Native American allottee would
receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership
(15) of the land.

Two main reasons were advanced for the
restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell
their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability
would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts
(20) of former reservation land to non-Native Americans,
consequently threatening the traditional way of life
on those reservations. A second objection to free
alienation was that Native Americans were
unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of
(25) private landownership. Their custom, it was said,
favored communal use of land.

However, both of these arguments bear only on
the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native
Americans; neither offers a reason for prohibiting
(30) Native Americans from transferring land among
themselves. Selling land to each other would not
threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if
communal land use remained preferable to Native
Americans after allotment, free alienability would have
(35) allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.

When stated rationales for government policies
prove empty, using an interest-group model often
provides an explanation. While neither Native
Americans nor the potential non-Native American
(40) purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation
contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group
did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been
convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to
maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in
(45) order to compensate for the lack of other sources of
fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally,
politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental
bureaucracy because such growth provides increased
opportunity for the exercise of political patronage.
(50) The restraint on alienation vastly increased the
amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to
implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in
1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native
American lands were among the principal activities of
(55) the United States government. One hypothesis, then,
for the temporary restriction on alienation in the
Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between
non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability
so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats
(60) who administered the privatization system.

25. It can be inferred from the passage that which one of the following was true of Native American life immediately before passage of the Dawes Act?

In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale
private ownership of reservation lands in the United
States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of
80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the
(5) Native Americans were not granted outright title to
their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust
patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the governmental agency in charge of
administering policy regarding Native Americans,
(10) would hold the allotted land in trust for 25 years,
during which time the Native American owners
could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the
25-year period, the Native American allottee would
receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership
(15) of the land.

Two main reasons were advanced for the
restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell
their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability
would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts
(20) of former reservation land to non-Native Americans,
consequently threatening the traditional way of life
on those reservations. A second objection to free
alienation was that Native Americans were
unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of
(25) private landownership. Their custom, it was said,
favored communal use of land.

However, both of these arguments bear only on
the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native
Americans; neither offers a reason for prohibiting
(30) Native Americans from transferring land among
themselves. Selling land to each other would not
threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if
communal land use remained preferable to Native
Americans after allotment, free alienability would have
(35) allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.

When stated rationales for government policies
prove empty, using an interest-group model often
provides an explanation. While neither Native
Americans nor the potential non-Native American
(40) purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation
contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group
did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been
convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to
maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in
(45) order to compensate for the lack of other sources of
fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally,
politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental
bureaucracy because such growth provides increased
opportunity for the exercise of political patronage.
(50) The restraint on alienation vastly increased the
amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to
implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in
1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native
American lands were among the principal activities of
(55) the United States government. One hypothesis, then,
for the temporary restriction on alienation in the
Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between
non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability
so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats
(60) who administered the privatization system.

26. According to the passage, the type of landownership initially obtainable by Native Americans under the Dawes Act differed from the type of ownership obtainable after a 25-year period in that only the latter allowed

In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale
private ownership of reservation lands in the United
States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of
80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the
(5) Native Americans were not granted outright title to
their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust
patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the governmental agency in charge of
administering policy regarding Native Americans,
(10) would hold the allotted land in trust for 25 years,
during which time the Native American owners
could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the
25-year period, the Native American allottee would
receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership
(15) of the land.

Two main reasons were advanced for the
restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell
their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability
would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts
(20) of former reservation land to non-Native Americans,
consequently threatening the traditional way of life
on those reservations. A second objection to free
alienation was that Native Americans were
unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of
(25) private landownership. Their custom, it was said,
favored communal use of land.

However, both of these arguments bear only on
the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native
Americans; neither offers a reason for prohibiting
(30) Native Americans from transferring land among
themselves. Selling land to each other would not
threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if
communal land use remained preferable to Native
Americans after allotment, free alienability would have
(35) allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.

When stated rationales for government policies
prove empty, using an interest-group model often
provides an explanation. While neither Native
Americans nor the potential non-Native American
(40) purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation
contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group
did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been
convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to
maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in
(45) order to compensate for the lack of other sources of
fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally,
politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental
bureaucracy because such growth provides increased
opportunity for the exercise of political patronage.
(50) The restraint on alienation vastly increased the
amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to
implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in
1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native
American lands were among the principal activities of
(55) the United States government. One hypothesis, then,
for the temporary restriction on alienation in the
Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between
non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability
so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats
(60) who administered the privatization system.

27. Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author’s argument regarding the true motivation for the passage of the Dawes Act?

In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale
private ownership of reservation lands in the United
States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of
80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the
(5) Native Americans were not granted outright title to
their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust
patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the governmental agency in charge of
administering policy regarding Native Americans,
(10) would hold the allotted land in trust for 25 years,
during which time the Native American owners
could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the
25-year period, the Native American allottee would
receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership
(15) of the land.

Two main reasons were advanced for the
restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell
their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability
would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts
(20) of former reservation land to non-Native Americans,
consequently threatening the traditional way of life
on those reservations. A second objection to free
alienation was that Native Americans were
unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of
(25) private landownership. Their custom, it was said,
favored communal use of land.

However, both of these arguments bear only on
the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native
Americans; neither offers a reason for prohibiting
(30) Native Americans from transferring land among
themselves. Selling land to each other would not
threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if
communal land use remained preferable to Native
Americans after allotment, free alienability would have
(35) allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.

When stated rationales for government policies
prove empty, using an interest-group model often
provides an explanation. While neither Native
Americans nor the potential non-Native American
(40) purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation
contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group
did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been
convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to
maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in
(45) order to compensate for the lack of other sources of
fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally,
politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental
bureaucracy because such growth provides increased
opportunity for the exercise of political patronage.
(50) The restraint on alienation vastly increased the
amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to
implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in
1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native
American lands were among the principal activities of
(55) the United States government. One hypothesis, then,
for the temporary restriction on alienation in the
Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between
non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability
so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats
(60) who administered the privatization system.