1.

In the passage, the author primarily attempts to

Most writings on the subject of motion
pictures, including those scrutinizing the structural
characteristics, aesthetic qualities, and effects of
motion pictures on audiences, have traditionally been
(5) relatively abstract and have not considered what a
film’s audiences actually see. In fact, various external
factors intervene between the filmmaker’s intent and the
audience’s experience, often altering the qualities of a
film and, consequently, the viewer’s perception of it.

(10) In the process of distribution, a film can be
mutilated in many ways. The damage is most obvious
when films in one language are shown to audiences that
speak a different language. Subtitling may be simply
incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual
(15) censorship. Dubbing—a significantly more profound
intervention—can be even more damaging. Some films
are reedited to render them “more understandable” by
their target audiences, while others are given new titles
rather than translations of their original titles, a practice
(20) that often creates false expectations and distorts the
work’s intent.

When a film is shown on television or video, it
suffers the most extensive deformations. In addition to
causing a loss of image size and definition, current
(25) mass-market television and video technology is harmful
in other ways. These intrusions include advertisements
that break the intended continuity, the superimposition
of images—such as station identifications and weather
bulletins—over parts of the picture, and spoken
(30) announcements over parts of the soundtrack considered
by programmers to be “unimportant.” Some alterations,
such as a subtle increase in the projection speed of a
televised movie to obtain more commercial time, are
almost imperceptible but nonetheless detrimental to the
(35) integrity of a film.

It seems that audiences and even most film critics
have tacitly accepted this situation—they rarely speak
about it. This may be partly because of the special
nature of film. In many other arts it is obvious that
(40) reproductions of a work are not the work itself, and they
are not treated as such. However, the very nature of film
makes it an exactly reproducible art form; under ideal
conditions, each print is not merely a reproduction but
is in fact another instance of the work itself. But we
(45) tend to overlook how rarely the ideal conditions apply,
and this is disturbing for two reasons. First, professional
analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to
filmmakers when—as is surprisingly often the case-
they are based on a version that has already been
(50) seriously altered. Second, when critics’ comments are
based on original, uncompromised versions of the films,
they may raise false expectations with regard to the
more or less faulty versions that are often available to
viewers.

2.

The author distinguishes film from at least some other art forms with regard to the

Most writings on the subject of motion
pictures, including those scrutinizing the structural
characteristics, aesthetic qualities, and effects of
motion pictures on audiences, have traditionally been
(5) relatively abstract and have not considered what a
film’s audiences actually see. In fact, various external
factors intervene between the filmmaker’s intent and the
audience’s experience, often altering the qualities of a
film and, consequently, the viewer’s perception of it.

(10) In the process of distribution, a film can be
mutilated in many ways. The damage is most obvious
when films in one language are shown to audiences that
speak a different language. Subtitling may be simply
incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual
(15) censorship. Dubbing—a significantly more profound
intervention—can be even more damaging. Some films
are reedited to render them “more understandable” by
their target audiences, while others are given new titles
rather than translations of their original titles, a practice
(20) that often creates false expectations and distorts the
work’s intent.

When a film is shown on television or video, it
suffers the most extensive deformations. In addition to
causing a loss of image size and definition, current
(25) mass-market television and video technology is harmful
in other ways. These intrusions include advertisements
that break the intended continuity, the superimposition
of images—such as station identifications and weather
bulletins—over parts of the picture, and spoken
(30) announcements over parts of the soundtrack considered
by programmers to be “unimportant.” Some alterations,
such as a subtle increase in the projection speed of a
televised movie to obtain more commercial time, are
almost imperceptible but nonetheless detrimental to the
(35) integrity of a film.

It seems that audiences and even most film critics
have tacitly accepted this situation—they rarely speak
about it. This may be partly because of the special
nature of film. In many other arts it is obvious that
(40) reproductions of a work are not the work itself, and they
are not treated as such. However, the very nature of film
makes it an exactly reproducible art form; under ideal
conditions, each print is not merely a reproduction but
is in fact another instance of the work itself. But we
(45) tend to overlook how rarely the ideal conditions apply,
and this is disturbing for two reasons. First, professional
analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to
filmmakers when—as is surprisingly often the case-
they are based on a version that has already been
(50) seriously altered. Second, when critics’ comments are
based on original, uncompromised versions of the films,
they may raise false expectations with regard to the
more or less faulty versions that are often available to
viewers.

3.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

Most writings on the subject of motion
pictures, including those scrutinizing the structural
characteristics, aesthetic qualities, and effects of
motion pictures on audiences, have traditionally been
(5) relatively abstract and have not considered what a
film’s audiences actually see. In fact, various external
factors intervene between the filmmaker’s intent and the
audience’s experience, often altering the qualities of a
film and, consequently, the viewer’s perception of it.

(10) In the process of distribution, a film can be
mutilated in many ways. The damage is most obvious
when films in one language are shown to audiences that
speak a different language. Subtitling may be simply
incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual
(15) censorship. Dubbing—a significantly more profound
intervention—can be even more damaging. Some films
are reedited to render them “more understandable” by
their target audiences, while others are given new titles
rather than translations of their original titles, a practice
(20) that often creates false expectations and distorts the
work’s intent.

When a film is shown on television or video, it
suffers the most extensive deformations. In addition to
causing a loss of image size and definition, current
(25) mass-market television and video technology is harmful
in other ways. These intrusions include advertisements
that break the intended continuity, the superimposition
of images—such as station identifications and weather
bulletins—over parts of the picture, and spoken
(30) announcements over parts of the soundtrack considered
by programmers to be “unimportant.” Some alterations,
such as a subtle increase in the projection speed of a
televised movie to obtain more commercial time, are
almost imperceptible but nonetheless detrimental to the
(35) integrity of a film.

It seems that audiences and even most film critics
have tacitly accepted this situation—they rarely speak
about it. This may be partly because of the special
nature of film. In many other arts it is obvious that
(40) reproductions of a work are not the work itself, and they
are not treated as such. However, the very nature of film
makes it an exactly reproducible art form; under ideal
conditions, each print is not merely a reproduction but
is in fact another instance of the work itself. But we
(45) tend to overlook how rarely the ideal conditions apply,
and this is disturbing for two reasons. First, professional
analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to
filmmakers when—as is surprisingly often the case-
they are based on a version that has already been
(50) seriously altered. Second, when critics’ comments are
based on original, uncompromised versions of the films,
they may raise false expectations with regard to the
more or less faulty versions that are often available to
viewers.

4.

Which one of the following would, if true, most strengthen the author’s argument concerning any modification of a film for distribution?

Most writings on the subject of motion
pictures, including those scrutinizing the structural
characteristics, aesthetic qualities, and effects of
motion pictures on audiences, have traditionally been
(5) relatively abstract and have not considered what a
film’s audiences actually see. In fact, various external
factors intervene between the filmmaker’s intent and the
audience’s experience, often altering the qualities of a
film and, consequently, the viewer’s perception of it.

(10) In the process of distribution, a film can be
mutilated in many ways. The damage is most obvious
when films in one language are shown to audiences that
speak a different language. Subtitling may be simply
incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual
(15) censorship. Dubbing—a significantly more profound
intervention—can be even more damaging. Some films
are reedited to render them “more understandable” by
their target audiences, while others are given new titles
rather than translations of their original titles, a practice
(20) that often creates false expectations and distorts the
work’s intent.

When a film is shown on television or video, it
suffers the most extensive deformations. In addition to
causing a loss of image size and definition, current
(25) mass-market television and video technology is harmful
in other ways. These intrusions include advertisements
that break the intended continuity, the superimposition
of images—such as station identifications and weather
bulletins—over parts of the picture, and spoken
(30) announcements over parts of the soundtrack considered
by programmers to be “unimportant.” Some alterations,
such as a subtle increase in the projection speed of a
televised movie to obtain more commercial time, are
almost imperceptible but nonetheless detrimental to the
(35) integrity of a film.

It seems that audiences and even most film critics
have tacitly accepted this situation—they rarely speak
about it. This may be partly because of the special
nature of film. In many other arts it is obvious that
(40) reproductions of a work are not the work itself, and they
are not treated as such. However, the very nature of film
makes it an exactly reproducible art form; under ideal
conditions, each print is not merely a reproduction but
is in fact another instance of the work itself. But we
(45) tend to overlook how rarely the ideal conditions apply,
and this is disturbing for two reasons. First, professional
analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to
filmmakers when—as is surprisingly often the case-
they are based on a version that has already been
(50) seriously altered. Second, when critics’ comments are
based on original, uncompromised versions of the films,
they may raise false expectations with regard to the
more or less faulty versions that are often available to
viewers.

5.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which one of the following statements about films?

Most writings on the subject of motion
pictures, including those scrutinizing the structural
characteristics, aesthetic qualities, and effects of
motion pictures on audiences, have traditionally been
(5) relatively abstract and have not considered what a
film’s audiences actually see. In fact, various external
factors intervene between the filmmaker’s intent and the
audience’s experience, often altering the qualities of a
film and, consequently, the viewer’s perception of it.

(10) In the process of distribution, a film can be
mutilated in many ways. The damage is most obvious
when films in one language are shown to audiences that
speak a different language. Subtitling may be simply
incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual
(15) censorship. Dubbing—a significantly more profound
intervention—can be even more damaging. Some films
are reedited to render them “more understandable” by
their target audiences, while others are given new titles
rather than translations of their original titles, a practice
(20) that often creates false expectations and distorts the
work’s intent.

When a film is shown on television or video, it
suffers the most extensive deformations. In addition to
causing a loss of image size and definition, current
(25) mass-market television and video technology is harmful
in other ways. These intrusions include advertisements
that break the intended continuity, the superimposition
of images—such as station identifications and weather
bulletins—over parts of the picture, and spoken
(30) announcements over parts of the soundtrack considered
by programmers to be “unimportant.” Some alterations,
such as a subtle increase in the projection speed of a
televised movie to obtain more commercial time, are
almost imperceptible but nonetheless detrimental to the
(35) integrity of a film.

It seems that audiences and even most film critics
have tacitly accepted this situation—they rarely speak
about it. This may be partly because of the special
nature of film. In many other arts it is obvious that
(40) reproductions of a work are not the work itself, and they
are not treated as such. However, the very nature of film
makes it an exactly reproducible art form; under ideal
conditions, each print is not merely a reproduction but
is in fact another instance of the work itself. But we
(45) tend to overlook how rarely the ideal conditions apply,
and this is disturbing for two reasons. First, professional
analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to
filmmakers when—as is surprisingly often the case-
they are based on a version that has already been
(50) seriously altered. Second, when critics’ comments are
based on original, uncompromised versions of the films,
they may raise false expectations with regard to the
more or less faulty versions that are often available to
viewers.

6. Suppose that a Russian company is planning to distribute to Russian-speaking audiences a film that was produced in Italy with dialogue originally spoken only in Italian.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would , be most likely to agree with which one of the following recommendations regarding the film?

Most writings on the subject of motion
pictures, including those scrutinizing the structural
characteristics, aesthetic qualities, and effects of
motion pictures on audiences, have traditionally been
(5) relatively abstract and have not considered what a
film’s audiences actually see. In fact, various external
factors intervene between the filmmaker’s intent and the
audience’s experience, often altering the qualities of a
film and, consequently, the viewer’s perception of it.

(10) In the process of distribution, a film can be
mutilated in many ways. The damage is most obvious
when films in one language are shown to audiences that
speak a different language. Subtitling may be simply
incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual
(15) censorship. Dubbing—a significantly more profound
intervention—can be even more damaging. Some films
are reedited to render them “more understandable” by
their target audiences, while others are given new titles
rather than translations of their original titles, a practice
(20) that often creates false expectations and distorts the
work’s intent.

When a film is shown on television or video, it
suffers the most extensive deformations. In addition to
causing a loss of image size and definition, current
(25) mass-market television and video technology is harmful
in other ways. These intrusions include advertisements
that break the intended continuity, the superimposition
of images—such as station identifications and weather
bulletins—over parts of the picture, and spoken
(30) announcements over parts of the soundtrack considered
by programmers to be “unimportant.” Some alterations,
such as a subtle increase in the projection speed of a
televised movie to obtain more commercial time, are
almost imperceptible but nonetheless detrimental to the
(35) integrity of a film.

It seems that audiences and even most film critics
have tacitly accepted this situation—they rarely speak
about it. This may be partly because of the special
nature of film. In many other arts it is obvious that
(40) reproductions of a work are not the work itself, and they
are not treated as such. However, the very nature of film
makes it an exactly reproducible art form; under ideal
conditions, each print is not merely a reproduction but
is in fact another instance of the work itself. But we
(45) tend to overlook how rarely the ideal conditions apply,
and this is disturbing for two reasons. First, professional
analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to
filmmakers when—as is surprisingly often the case-
they are based on a version that has already been
(50) seriously altered. Second, when critics’ comments are
based on original, uncompromised versions of the films,
they may raise false expectations with regard to the
more or less faulty versions that are often available to
viewers.

7.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the main point of the passage?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

8.

There is information in the passage sufficient to answer which one of the following questions?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

9.

Which one of the following is closest to the meaning of the phrase “relieving pressure on ocean fisheries” as used in the middle of the first paragraph?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

10.

The information in the passage most strongly supports which one of the following statements?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

11.

The views put forward in the passage conform most closely to which one of the following principles governing new methods of food production?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

12.

The statements in the passage provide the most support for the view that the author believes which one of the following?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

13.

The information in the passage most strongly supports which one of the following statements?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

14.

The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements regarding pollution caused by fish farming?

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks
has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production
of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish fanning.
Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global
(5) fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming
produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by
humans, and, as global population increases, fish
farming will probably become even more important in
supplying human protein needs. Some experts
(10) even argue that in addition to helping to compensate
for the decline in ocean harvests, fish farming will
restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean
fisheries. There is, however, little if any evidence that
fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.
(15) The complexity of production systems leads to an
underlying paradox: fish farming is a possible solution,
but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued
decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish
(20) farming, oriented toward high-volume production,
threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through
water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive
fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a
secure system; population densities are typically high,
(25) resulting in the generation of large amounts of waste
and increased potential for the spread of pathogens.
Habitat destruction through the spread of untreated
waste, the escape of species not native to the farm’s
region, or contamination by new pathogens can all
(30) ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources
and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many
species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish
oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter
(35) lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately
supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species
of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9
kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of
fish produced. Of the ten species, only three—catfish,
(40) milkfish, and carp—require less fish input than is
eventually harvested, while the farming of carnivorous
species like salmon has a very high input-to-output
ratio. Although some defenders of fish farming contend
that predatory carnivores in the wild consume even
(45) more fish than they would on a farm, farming of such
carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild
fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential
to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks.
(50) For example, increasing the farm production of fish
like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in
fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.
Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel
catfish provide alternatives to ocean fish like cod and
(55) haddock. Nonetheless, even these benefits may in
the end be lost because niche markets have started to
develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing
their catch rates to remain high even as the production
of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

15.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice
witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role
of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse
informants (witnesses who provide testimony based
(5) on information obtained while incarcerated) for
prosecutorial information. Typically the testimony
provided by such cooperating witnesses includes
information garnered through the witnesses’
conversations with the accused, which can include a
(10) purported confession to the crime.

Information from a cooperating witness is often
provided in exchange for a reduced sentence or some
other incentive. This kind of inducement creates a
situation that is highly conducive to evidence
(15) fabrication on the part of the cooperating witness. In
fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants
are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain
and little to lose by testifying falsely.

While courts have recognized the unreliable nature
(20) of evidence obtained through bartered testimony, they
have held that safeguards are in place to adequately
protect the accused against a conviction based on false
testimony. These safeguards allow effective cross-
examination of a cooperating witness and enable the
(25) jury to consider a witness’s motivations. However,
these safeguards do not always provide protection.
There are cases in which prosecutors merely imply
to cooperating witnesses that they will receive an
incentive in exchange for testimony. In such cases, the
(30) exchange between prosecution and witness does not
have to be disclosed to the jury.

In addition, psychological research on confession
testimony—confessions obtained by investigators
directly from the accused—reveal further problems
(35) with bartered testimony. This research indicates that
jurors give undue weight to confession evidence when
rendering guilt decisions. This effect is especially
notable in cases where jurors are aware that a defendant
has been offered an incentive in exchange for a
(40) confession. This is particularly relevant here because
if people have difficulty realizing the effect that an
incentive can have on a defendant’s behavior, they may
also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have
on a cooperating witness’s behavior.

(45) A common psychological phenomenon may account
for jurors’ superficial examination of confession
evidence. Studies show that people tend to explain the
behavior of others in terms of internal dispositions or
attitudes as opposed to external, situational factors. In
(50) one study, regardless of whether confession evidence
was obtained via negative pressure (threats of worse
treatment and/or harsher punishment) or positive
pressure (promises of better treatment and/or leniency),
mock jurors viewed a confession as evidence that the
(55) defendant committed the crime because “only a guilty
person would confess to such a crime.” The same logic
can be applied to the testimony of cooperating
witnesses: jurors may presuppose that accomplice
witnesses and jailhouse informants offer their testimony
(60) as atonement rather than deducing that external factors
made it expedient to give the testimony.

16.

Which one of the following questions is explicitly addressed in the passage?

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice
witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role
of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse
informants (witnesses who provide testimony based
(5) on information obtained while incarcerated) for
prosecutorial information. Typically the testimony
provided by such cooperating witnesses includes
information garnered through the witnesses’
conversations with the accused, which can include a
(10) purported confession to the crime.

Information from a cooperating witness is often
provided in exchange for a reduced sentence or some
other incentive. This kind of inducement creates a
situation that is highly conducive to evidence
(15) fabrication on the part of the cooperating witness. In
fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants
are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain
and little to lose by testifying falsely.

While courts have recognized the unreliable nature
(20) of evidence obtained through bartered testimony, they
have held that safeguards are in place to adequately
protect the accused against a conviction based on false
testimony. These safeguards allow effective cross-
examination of a cooperating witness and enable the
(25) jury to consider a witness’s motivations. However,
these safeguards do not always provide protection.
There are cases in which prosecutors merely imply
to cooperating witnesses that they will receive an
incentive in exchange for testimony. In such cases, the
(30) exchange between prosecution and witness does not
have to be disclosed to the jury.

In addition, psychological research on confession
testimony—confessions obtained by investigators
directly from the accused—reveal further problems
(35) with bartered testimony. This research indicates that
jurors give undue weight to confession evidence when
rendering guilt decisions. This effect is especially
notable in cases where jurors are aware that a defendant
has been offered an incentive in exchange for a
(40) confession. This is particularly relevant here because
if people have difficulty realizing the effect that an
incentive can have on a defendant’s behavior, they may
also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have
on a cooperating witness’s behavior.

(45) A common psychological phenomenon may account
for jurors’ superficial examination of confession
evidence. Studies show that people tend to explain the
behavior of others in terms of internal dispositions or
attitudes as opposed to external, situational factors. In
(50) one study, regardless of whether confession evidence
was obtained via negative pressure (threats of worse
treatment and/or harsher punishment) or positive
pressure (promises of better treatment and/or leniency),
mock jurors viewed a confession as evidence that the
(55) defendant committed the crime because “only a guilty
person would confess to such a crime.” The same logic
can be applied to the testimony of cooperating
witnesses: jurors may presuppose that accomplice
witnesses and jailhouse informants offer their testimony
(60) as atonement rather than deducing that external factors
made it expedient to give the testimony.

17.

The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the courts’ reliance on the testimony of cooperating witnesses?

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice
witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role
of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse
informants (witnesses who provide testimony based
(5) on information obtained while incarcerated) for
prosecutorial information. Typically the testimony
provided by such cooperating witnesses includes
information garnered through the witnesses’
conversations with the accused, which can include a
(10) purported confession to the crime.

Information from a cooperating witness is often
provided in exchange for a reduced sentence or some
other incentive. This kind of inducement creates a
situation that is highly conducive to evidence
(15) fabrication on the part of the cooperating witness. In
fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants
are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain
and little to lose by testifying falsely.

While courts have recognized the unreliable nature
(20) of evidence obtained through bartered testimony, they
have held that safeguards are in place to adequately
protect the accused against a conviction based on false
testimony. These safeguards allow effective cross-
examination of a cooperating witness and enable the
(25) jury to consider a witness’s motivations. However,
these safeguards do not always provide protection.
There are cases in which prosecutors merely imply
to cooperating witnesses that they will receive an
incentive in exchange for testimony. In such cases, the
(30) exchange between prosecution and witness does not
have to be disclosed to the jury.

In addition, psychological research on confession
testimony—confessions obtained by investigators
directly from the accused—reveal further problems
(35) with bartered testimony. This research indicates that
jurors give undue weight to confession evidence when
rendering guilt decisions. This effect is especially
notable in cases where jurors are aware that a defendant
has been offered an incentive in exchange for a
(40) confession. This is particularly relevant here because
if people have difficulty realizing the effect that an
incentive can have on a defendant’s behavior, they may
also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have
on a cooperating witness’s behavior.

(45) A common psychological phenomenon may account
for jurors’ superficial examination of confession
evidence. Studies show that people tend to explain the
behavior of others in terms of internal dispositions or
attitudes as opposed to external, situational factors. In
(50) one study, regardless of whether confession evidence
was obtained via negative pressure (threats of worse
treatment and/or harsher punishment) or positive
pressure (promises of better treatment and/or leniency),
mock jurors viewed a confession as evidence that the
(55) defendant committed the crime because “only a guilty
person would confess to such a crime.” The same logic
can be applied to the testimony of cooperating
witnesses: jurors may presuppose that accomplice
witnesses and jailhouse informants offer their testimony
(60) as atonement rather than deducing that external factors
made it expedient to give the testimony.

18.

According to the third paragraph, current safeguards may be inadequate to protect a defendant from a cooperating witness’s fabricated testimony because

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice
witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role
of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse
informants (witnesses who provide testimony based
(5) on information obtained while incarcerated) for
prosecutorial information. Typically the testimony
provided by such cooperating witnesses includes
information garnered through the witnesses’
conversations with the accused, which can include a
(10) purported confession to the crime.

Information from a cooperating witness is often
provided in exchange for a reduced sentence or some
other incentive. This kind of inducement creates a
situation that is highly conducive to evidence
(15) fabrication on the part of the cooperating witness. In
fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants
are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain
and little to lose by testifying falsely.

While courts have recognized the unreliable nature
(20) of evidence obtained through bartered testimony, they
have held that safeguards are in place to adequately
protect the accused against a conviction based on false
testimony. These safeguards allow effective cross-
examination of a cooperating witness and enable the
(25) jury to consider a witness’s motivations. However,
these safeguards do not always provide protection.
There are cases in which prosecutors merely imply
to cooperating witnesses that they will receive an
incentive in exchange for testimony. In such cases, the
(30) exchange between prosecution and witness does not
have to be disclosed to the jury.

In addition, psychological research on confession
testimony—confessions obtained by investigators
directly from the accused—reveal further problems
(35) with bartered testimony. This research indicates that
jurors give undue weight to confession evidence when
rendering guilt decisions. This effect is especially
notable in cases where jurors are aware that a defendant
has been offered an incentive in exchange for a
(40) confession. This is particularly relevant here because
if people have difficulty realizing the effect that an
incentive can have on a defendant’s behavior, they may
also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have
on a cooperating witness’s behavior.

(45) A common psychological phenomenon may account
for jurors’ superficial examination of confession
evidence. Studies show that people tend to explain the
behavior of others in terms of internal dispositions or
attitudes as opposed to external, situational factors. In
(50) one study, regardless of whether confession evidence
was obtained via negative pressure (threats of worse
treatment and/or harsher punishment) or positive
pressure (promises of better treatment and/or leniency),
mock jurors viewed a confession as evidence that the
(55) defendant committed the crime because “only a guilty
person would confess to such a crime.” The same logic
can be applied to the testimony of cooperating
witnesses: jurors may presuppose that accomplice
witnesses and jailhouse informants offer their testimony
(60) as atonement rather than deducing that external factors
made it expedient to give the testimony.

19.

In using the phrase “jurors’superficial examination of confession evidence” (first sentence of the final paragraph), the author most likely means to refer to jurors’

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice
witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role
of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse
informants (witnesses who provide testimony based
(5) on information obtained while incarcerated) for
prosecutorial information. Typically the testimony
provided by such cooperating witnesses includes
information garnered through the witnesses’
conversations with the accused, which can include a
(10) purported confession to the crime.

Information from a cooperating witness is often
provided in exchange for a reduced sentence or some
other incentive. This kind of inducement creates a
situation that is highly conducive to evidence
(15) fabrication on the part of the cooperating witness. In
fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants
are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain
and little to lose by testifying falsely.

While courts have recognized the unreliable nature
(20) of evidence obtained through bartered testimony, they
have held that safeguards are in place to adequately
protect the accused against a conviction based on false
testimony. These safeguards allow effective cross-
examination of a cooperating witness and enable the
(25) jury to consider a witness’s motivations. However,
these safeguards do not always provide protection.
There are cases in which prosecutors merely imply
to cooperating witnesses that they will receive an
incentive in exchange for testimony. In such cases, the
(30) exchange between prosecution and witness does not
have to be disclosed to the jury.

In addition, psychological research on confession
testimony—confessions obtained by investigators
directly from the accused—reveal further problems
(35) with bartered testimony. This research indicates that
jurors give undue weight to confession evidence when
rendering guilt decisions. This effect is especially
notable in cases where jurors are aware that a defendant
has been offered an incentive in exchange for a
(40) confession. This is particularly relevant here because
if people have difficulty realizing the effect that an
incentive can have on a defendant’s behavior, they may
also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have
on a cooperating witness’s behavior.

(45) A common psychological phenomenon may account
for jurors’ superficial examination of confession
evidence. Studies show that people tend to explain the
behavior of others in terms of internal dispositions or
attitudes as opposed to external, situational factors. In
(50) one study, regardless of whether confession evidence
was obtained via negative pressure (threats of worse
treatment and/or harsher punishment) or positive
pressure (promises of better treatment and/or leniency),
mock jurors viewed a confession as evidence that the
(55) defendant committed the crime because “only a guilty
person would confess to such a crime.” The same logic
can be applied to the testimony of cooperating
witnesses: jurors may presuppose that accomplice
witnesses and jailhouse informants offer their testimony
(60) as atonement rather than deducing that external factors
made it expedient to give the testimony.

20.

The author mentions the research on confession testimony (fourth paragraph) primarily in order to

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice
witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role
of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse
informants (witnesses who provide testimony based
(5) on information obtained while incarcerated) for
prosecutorial information. Typically the testimony
provided by such cooperating witnesses includes
information garnered through the witnesses’
conversations with the accused, which can include a
(10) purported confession to the crime.

Information from a cooperating witness is often
provided in exchange for a reduced sentence or some
other incentive. This kind of inducement creates a
situation that is highly conducive to evidence
(15) fabrication on the part of the cooperating witness. In
fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants
are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain
and little to lose by testifying falsely.

While courts have recognized the unreliable nature
(20) of evidence obtained through bartered testimony, they
have held that safeguards are in place to adequately
protect the accused against a conviction based on false
testimony. These safeguards allow effective cross-
examination of a cooperating witness and enable the
(25) jury to consider a witness’s motivations. However,
these safeguards do not always provide protection.
There are cases in which prosecutors merely imply
to cooperating witnesses that they will receive an
incentive in exchange for testimony. In such cases, the
(30) exchange between prosecution and witness does not
have to be disclosed to the jury.

In addition, psychological research on confession
testimony—confessions obtained by investigators
directly from the accused—reveal further problems
(35) with bartered testimony. This research indicates that
jurors give undue weight to confession evidence when
rendering guilt decisions. This effect is especially
notable in cases where jurors are aware that a defendant
has been offered an incentive in exchange for a
(40) confession. This is particularly relevant here because
if people have difficulty realizing the effect that an
incentive can have on a defendant’s behavior, they may
also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have
on a cooperating witness’s behavior.

(45) A common psychological phenomenon may account
for jurors’ superficial examination of confession
evidence. Studies show that people tend to explain the
behavior of others in terms of internal dispositions or
attitudes as opposed to external, situational factors. In
(50) one study, regardless of whether confession evidence
was obtained via negative pressure (threats of worse
treatment and/or harsher punishment) or positive
pressure (promises of better treatment and/or leniency),
mock jurors viewed a confession as evidence that the
(55) defendant committed the crime because “only a guilty
person would confess to such a crime.” The same logic
can be applied to the testimony of cooperating
witnesses: jurors may presuppose that accomplice
witnesses and jailhouse informants offer their testimony
(60) as atonement rather than deducing that external factors
made it expedient to give the testimony.

21.

Which one of the following most accurately describes how the final paragraph functions in the passage?

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice
witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role
of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse
informants (witnesses who provide testimony based
(5) on information obtained while incarcerated) for
prosecutorial information. Typically the testimony
provided by such cooperating witnesses includes
information garnered through the witnesses’
conversations with the accused, which can include a
(10) purported confession to the crime.

Information from a cooperating witness is often
provided in exchange for a reduced sentence or some
other incentive. This kind of inducement creates a
situation that is highly conducive to evidence
(15) fabrication on the part of the cooperating witness. In
fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants
are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain
and little to lose by testifying falsely.

While courts have recognized the unreliable nature
(20) of evidence obtained through bartered testimony, they
have held that safeguards are in place to adequately
protect the accused against a conviction based on false
testimony. These safeguards allow effective cross-
examination of a cooperating witness and enable the
(25) jury to consider a witness’s motivations. However,
these safeguards do not always provide protection.
There are cases in which prosecutors merely imply
to cooperating witnesses that they will receive an
incentive in exchange for testimony. In such cases, the
(30) exchange between prosecution and witness does not
have to be disclosed to the jury.

In addition, psychological research on confession
testimony—confessions obtained by investigators
directly from the accused—reveal further problems
(35) with bartered testimony. This research indicates that
jurors give undue weight to confession evidence when
rendering guilt decisions. This effect is especially
notable in cases where jurors are aware that a defendant
has been offered an incentive in exchange for a
(40) confession. This is particularly relevant here because
if people have difficulty realizing the effect that an
incentive can have on a defendant’s behavior, they may
also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have
on a cooperating witness’s behavior.

(45) A common psychological phenomenon may account
for jurors’ superficial examination of confession
evidence. Studies show that people tend to explain the
behavior of others in terms of internal dispositions or
attitudes as opposed to external, situational factors. In
(50) one study, regardless of whether confession evidence
was obtained via negative pressure (threats of worse
treatment and/or harsher punishment) or positive
pressure (promises of better treatment and/or leniency),
mock jurors viewed a confession as evidence that the
(55) defendant committed the crime because “only a guilty
person would confess to such a crime.” The same logic
can be applied to the testimony of cooperating
witnesses: jurors may presuppose that accomplice
witnesses and jailhouse informants offer their testimony
(60) as atonement rather than deducing that external factors
made it expedient to give the testimony.

22.

Which one of the following is a principal purpose of each passage?

Passage A

Many commentators have described the blues
musician of the United States as an extension of the
griot of West Africa, yet one could hardly find two
(5) performers with less in common from a sociological
perspective. Griots were the historians of their
communities, representatives of time-honored
traditions, the preservers of lore and cultural identity.
They took these traditions and transformed them into
(10) song, and as a result often enjoyed great status in their
communities. In societies that lacked libraries and
museums, official documents and archives, the griot’s
song filled many of the roles that these institutions
serve in other societies.

(15) The blues musician, in contrast, honed a music
of personal expression, often reflecting a lack of
connection to the broader streams of society, evoking
feelings of alienation and anomie. Slavery caused this
terrible disjunction. Slavery destroyed in large part the
(20) traditional social fabric, the communal values, the
historical continuities that made the griot’s art possible.
Blues music was, in many ways, a response to this
deprivation.

And here we encounter the fundamental tragedy
(25) of the blues and one of the sources of its unparalleled
symbolic power. For the music sings of small,
everyday details of individual lives. But behind this
facade always sits a larger reality, invariably unspoken,
but no less present for this silence. Separated from the
(30) social institutions that gave life its meaning and
resonance within their traditional societies, African
Americans struggled to find substitutes for what
was lost within the smaller cosmos of their personal
relationships and daily life. Blues music reflected this
(35) dynamic, gave it powerful poetic expression.
From this perspective, the perennial themes of blues
music—heartache and hardships—capture in a personal
dimension the larger social truth.

Passage B

(40) Fifteenth-century Portuguese explorers observed a
stratified social hierarchy in the Wolof culture of
Senegal, with a high-status noble sector (geer) and
low-status caste groups (neeno). Wolof elites of the day
ranked neeno in six subcastes, the lowest of which was
(45) griot.

Griots alone specialized in the spoken word.
Raising one’s voice in public was considered
inappropriate for socially prominent people, but griots,
considered unmarriageable outside their caste, shouted
(50) and sang their patrons’ praises to crowds of people,
often with a drum, and always with great eloquence.

At community gatherings, griots accompanied
their patrons, with whom they had usually inherited
a close relationship through generations of service.
(55) Reciting vivid histories about the brave deeds of their
patrons’ family ancestors and singing praises about
their exemplary work and daily conduct, griots used
their music to sway public opinion in favor of their
patrons. Their songs invoked specific public values and
(60) described their patrons’ adherence to them, making the
griot a blend of community historian, storyteller,
spokesperson, and ultimately, guardian of norms
and culture. Despite the griots’ public loudness,
these performances and the prestige they brought
(65) their patrons required griots to be sensitive to Wolof
community values and conceptions of correct
social conduct.

23.

Based on the information in passage A about blues and the information in passage B about the music of Wolof griots, which one of the following can most reasonably be inferred?

Passage A

Many commentators have described the blues
musician of the United States as an extension of the
griot of West Africa, yet one could hardly find two
(5) performers with less in common from a sociological
perspective. Griots were the historians of their
communities, representatives of time-honored
traditions, the preservers of lore and cultural identity.
They took these traditions and transformed them into
(10) song, and as a result often enjoyed great status in their
communities. In societies that lacked libraries and
museums, official documents and archives, the griot’s
song filled many of the roles that these institutions
serve in other societies.

(15) The blues musician, in contrast, honed a music
of personal expression, often reflecting a lack of
connection to the broader streams of society, evoking
feelings of alienation and anomie. Slavery caused this
terrible disjunction. Slavery destroyed in large part the
(20) traditional social fabric, the communal values, the
historical continuities that made the griot’s art possible.
Blues music was, in many ways, a response to this
deprivation.

And here we encounter the fundamental tragedy
(25) of the blues and one of the sources of its unparalleled
symbolic power. For the music sings of small,
everyday details of individual lives. But behind this
facade always sits a larger reality, invariably unspoken,
but no less present for this silence. Separated from the
(30) social institutions that gave life its meaning and
resonance within their traditional societies, African
Americans struggled to find substitutes for what
was lost within the smaller cosmos of their personal
relationships and daily life. Blues music reflected this
(35) dynamic, gave it powerful poetic expression.
From this perspective, the perennial themes of blues
music—heartache and hardships—capture in a personal
dimension the larger social truth.

Passage B

(40) Fifteenth-century Portuguese explorers observed a
stratified social hierarchy in the Wolof culture of
Senegal, with a high-status noble sector (geer) and
low-status caste groups (neeno). Wolof elites of the day
ranked neeno in six subcastes, the lowest of which was
(45) griot.

Griots alone specialized in the spoken word.
Raising one’s voice in public was considered
inappropriate for socially prominent people, but griots,
considered unmarriageable outside their caste, shouted
(50) and sang their patrons’ praises to crowds of people,
often with a drum, and always with great eloquence.

At community gatherings, griots accompanied
their patrons, with whom they had usually inherited
a close relationship through generations of service.
(55) Reciting vivid histories about the brave deeds of their
patrons’ family ancestors and singing praises about
their exemplary work and daily conduct, griots used
their music to sway public opinion in favor of their
patrons. Their songs invoked specific public values and
(60) described their patrons’ adherence to them, making the
griot a blend of community historian, storyteller,
spokesperson, and ultimately, guardian of norms
and culture. Despite the griots’ public loudness,
these performances and the prestige they brought
(65) their patrons required griots to be sensitive to Wolof
community values and conceptions of correct
social conduct.

24.

The attitude displayed in passage A toward blues musicians and the attitude displayed in passage B toward griots can both be characterized as

Passage A

Many commentators have described the blues
musician of the United States as an extension of the
griot of West Africa, yet one could hardly find two
(5) performers with less in common from a sociological
perspective. Griots were the historians of their
communities, representatives of time-honored
traditions, the preservers of lore and cultural identity.
They took these traditions and transformed them into
(10) song, and as a result often enjoyed great status in their
communities. In societies that lacked libraries and
museums, official documents and archives, the griot’s
song filled many of the roles that these institutions
serve in other societies.

(15) The blues musician, in contrast, honed a music
of personal expression, often reflecting a lack of
connection to the broader streams of society, evoking
feelings of alienation and anomie. Slavery caused this
terrible disjunction. Slavery destroyed in large part the
(20) traditional social fabric, the communal values, the
historical continuities that made the griot’s art possible.
Blues music was, in many ways, a response to this
deprivation.

And here we encounter the fundamental tragedy
(25) of the blues and one of the sources of its unparalleled
symbolic power. For the music sings of small,
everyday details of individual lives. But behind this
facade always sits a larger reality, invariably unspoken,
but no less present for this silence. Separated from the
(30) social institutions that gave life its meaning and
resonance within their traditional societies, African
Americans struggled to find substitutes for what
was lost within the smaller cosmos of their personal
relationships and daily life. Blues music reflected this
(35) dynamic, gave it powerful poetic expression.
From this perspective, the perennial themes of blues
music—heartache and hardships—capture in a personal
dimension the larger social truth.

Passage B

(40) Fifteenth-century Portuguese explorers observed a
stratified social hierarchy in the Wolof culture of
Senegal, with a high-status noble sector (geer) and
low-status caste groups (neeno). Wolof elites of the day
ranked neeno in six subcastes, the lowest of which was
(45) griot.

Griots alone specialized in the spoken word.
Raising one’s voice in public was considered
inappropriate for socially prominent people, but griots,
considered unmarriageable outside their caste, shouted
(50) and sang their patrons’ praises to crowds of people,
often with a drum, and always with great eloquence.

At community gatherings, griots accompanied
their patrons, with whom they had usually inherited
a close relationship through generations of service.
(55) Reciting vivid histories about the brave deeds of their
patrons’ family ancestors and singing praises about
their exemplary work and daily conduct, griots used
their music to sway public opinion in favor of their
patrons. Their songs invoked specific public values and
(60) described their patrons’ adherence to them, making the
griot a blend of community historian, storyteller,
spokesperson, and ultimately, guardian of norms
and culture. Despite the griots’ public loudness,
these performances and the prestige they brought
(65) their patrons required griots to be sensitive to Wolof
community values and conceptions of correct
social conduct.

25.

Passage B indicates that which one of the following claims made in passage A about griots was not true of griots in fifteenth-century Wolof culture?

Passage A

Many commentators have described the blues
musician of the United States as an extension of the
griot of West Africa, yet one could hardly find two
(5) performers with less in common from a sociological
perspective. Griots were the historians of their
communities, representatives of time-honored
traditions, the preservers of lore and cultural identity.
They took these traditions and transformed them into
(10) song, and as a result often enjoyed great status in their
communities. In societies that lacked libraries and
museums, official documents and archives, the griot’s
song filled many of the roles that these institutions
serve in other societies.

(15) The blues musician, in contrast, honed a music
of personal expression, often reflecting a lack of
connection to the broader streams of society, evoking
feelings of alienation and anomie. Slavery caused this
terrible disjunction. Slavery destroyed in large part the
(20) traditional social fabric, the communal values, the
historical continuities that made the griot’s art possible.
Blues music was, in many ways, a response to this
deprivation.

And here we encounter the fundamental tragedy
(25) of the blues and one of the sources of its unparalleled
symbolic power. For the music sings of small,
everyday details of individual lives. But behind this
facade always sits a larger reality, invariably unspoken,
but no less present for this silence. Separated from the
(30) social institutions that gave life its meaning and
resonance within their traditional societies, African
Americans struggled to find substitutes for what
was lost within the smaller cosmos of their personal
relationships and daily life. Blues music reflected this
(35) dynamic, gave it powerful poetic expression.
From this perspective, the perennial themes of blues
music—heartache and hardships—capture in a personal
dimension the larger social truth.

Passage B

(40) Fifteenth-century Portuguese explorers observed a
stratified social hierarchy in the Wolof culture of
Senegal, with a high-status noble sector (geer) and
low-status caste groups (neeno). Wolof elites of the day
ranked neeno in six subcastes, the lowest of which was
(45) griot.

Griots alone specialized in the spoken word.
Raising one’s voice in public was considered
inappropriate for socially prominent people, but griots,
considered unmarriageable outside their caste, shouted
(50) and sang their patrons’ praises to crowds of people,
often with a drum, and always with great eloquence.

At community gatherings, griots accompanied
their patrons, with whom they had usually inherited
a close relationship through generations of service.
(55) Reciting vivid histories about the brave deeds of their
patrons’ family ancestors and singing praises about
their exemplary work and daily conduct, griots used
their music to sway public opinion in favor of their
patrons. Their songs invoked specific public values and
(60) described their patrons’ adherence to them, making the
griot a blend of community historian, storyteller,
spokesperson, and ultimately, guardian of norms
and culture. Despite the griots’ public loudness,
these performances and the prestige they brought
(65) their patrons required griots to be sensitive to Wolof
community values and conceptions of correct
social conduct.

26.

Passage B suggests that which one of the following was true of fifteenth-century Wolof society?

Passage A

Many commentators have described the blues
musician of the United States as an extension of the
griot of West Africa, yet one could hardly find two
(5) performers with less in common from a sociological
perspective. Griots were the historians of their
communities, representatives of time-honored
traditions, the preservers of lore and cultural identity.
They took these traditions and transformed them into
(10) song, and as a result often enjoyed great status in their
communities. In societies that lacked libraries and
museums, official documents and archives, the griot’s
song filled many of the roles that these institutions
serve in other societies.

(15) The blues musician, in contrast, honed a music
of personal expression, often reflecting a lack of
connection to the broader streams of society, evoking
feelings of alienation and anomie. Slavery caused this
terrible disjunction. Slavery destroyed in large part the
(20) traditional social fabric, the communal values, the
historical continuities that made the griot’s art possible.
Blues music was, in many ways, a response to this
deprivation.

And here we encounter the fundamental tragedy
(25) of the blues and one of the sources of its unparalleled
symbolic power. For the music sings of small,
everyday details of individual lives. But behind this
facade always sits a larger reality, invariably unspoken,
but no less present for this silence. Separated from the
(30) social institutions that gave life its meaning and
resonance within their traditional societies, African
Americans struggled to find substitutes for what
was lost within the smaller cosmos of their personal
relationships and daily life. Blues music reflected this
(35) dynamic, gave it powerful poetic expression.
From this perspective, the perennial themes of blues
music—heartache and hardships—capture in a personal
dimension the larger social truth.

Passage B

(40) Fifteenth-century Portuguese explorers observed a
stratified social hierarchy in the Wolof culture of
Senegal, with a high-status noble sector (geer) and
low-status caste groups (neeno). Wolof elites of the day
ranked neeno in six subcastes, the lowest of which was
(45) griot.

Griots alone specialized in the spoken word.
Raising one’s voice in public was considered
inappropriate for socially prominent people, but griots,
considered unmarriageable outside their caste, shouted
(50) and sang their patrons’ praises to crowds of people,
often with a drum, and always with great eloquence.

At community gatherings, griots accompanied
their patrons, with whom they had usually inherited
a close relationship through generations of service.
(55) Reciting vivid histories about the brave deeds of their
patrons’ family ancestors and singing praises about
their exemplary work and daily conduct, griots used
their music to sway public opinion in favor of their
patrons. Their songs invoked specific public values and
(60) described their patrons’ adherence to them, making the
griot a blend of community historian, storyteller,
spokesperson, and ultimately, guardian of norms
and culture. Despite the griots’ public loudness,
these performances and the prestige they brought
(65) their patrons required griots to be sensitive to Wolof
community values and conceptions of correct
social conduct.

27.

A difference in the way in which the two passages use the term “griot” is that

Passage A

Many commentators have described the blues
musician of the United States as an extension of the
griot of West Africa, yet one could hardly find two
(5) performers with less in common from a sociological
perspective. Griots were the historians of their
communities, representatives of time-honored
traditions, the preservers of lore and cultural identity.
They took these traditions and transformed them into
(10) song, and as a result often enjoyed great status in their
communities. In societies that lacked libraries and
museums, official documents and archives, the griot’s
song filled many of the roles that these institutions
serve in other societies.

(15) The blues musician, in contrast, honed a music
of personal expression, often reflecting a lack of
connection to the broader streams of society, evoking
feelings of alienation and anomie. Slavery caused this
terrible disjunction. Slavery destroyed in large part the
(20) traditional social fabric, the communal values, the
historical continuities that made the griot’s art possible.
Blues music was, in many ways, a response to this
deprivation.

And here we encounter the fundamental tragedy
(25) of the blues and one of the sources of its unparalleled
symbolic power. For the music sings of small,
everyday details of individual lives. But behind this
facade always sits a larger reality, invariably unspoken,
but no less present for this silence. Separated from the
(30) social institutions that gave life its meaning and
resonance within their traditional societies, African
Americans struggled to find substitutes for what
was lost within the smaller cosmos of their personal
relationships and daily life. Blues music reflected this
(35) dynamic, gave it powerful poetic expression.
From this perspective, the perennial themes of blues
music—heartache and hardships—capture in a personal
dimension the larger social truth.

Passage B

(40) Fifteenth-century Portuguese explorers observed a
stratified social hierarchy in the Wolof culture of
Senegal, with a high-status noble sector (geer) and
low-status caste groups (neeno). Wolof elites of the day
ranked neeno in six subcastes, the lowest of which was
(45) griot.

Griots alone specialized in the spoken word.
Raising one’s voice in public was considered
inappropriate for socially prominent people, but griots,
considered unmarriageable outside their caste, shouted
(50) and sang their patrons’ praises to crowds of people,
often with a drum, and always with great eloquence.

At community gatherings, griots accompanied
their patrons, with whom they had usually inherited
a close relationship through generations of service.
(55) Reciting vivid histories about the brave deeds of their
patrons’ family ancestors and singing praises about
their exemplary work and daily conduct, griots used
their music to sway public opinion in favor of their
patrons. Their songs invoked specific public values and
(60) described their patrons’ adherence to them, making the
griot a blend of community historian, storyteller,
spokesperson, and ultimately, guardian of norms
and culture. Despite the griots’ public loudness,
these performances and the prestige they brought
(65) their patrons required griots to be sensitive to Wolof
community values and conceptions of correct
social conduct.