Classic example of an RC where the author uses super-complex language to convey a simple idea.
1. The truth is not served; you have to find it yourself.
2. Cannot trust the government (tinfoil hat argument).
3. Paglen's work is special; it introduced ideas 1 and 2
subtly.
One thing to remember with RCs is that their difficulty and complexity are usually a facade. They become easy to comprehend upon a careful close look.
Q1:
Must be C, in my opinion.
I.
Why should the boundary be abolished? Abolished means to end officially. The author does not tell us anything about what should be done to this boundary, only what Paglen's work did to it.II.
No suggestions are being made by the author for what the government should or should not do; the government will probably never tell us the truth, but it's out there and can be discovered. Hence,
only III. Answer choice C.
Q2. The author mentions the “infinitely receding horizon” primarily in order to
A. draw a parallel to Paglen’s lack of forthrightness -
Wrong. Does Paglen even lack forthrightness? B. support the notion that long-range vision is crucial to setting goals -
Wrong. Long-range vision may be a possible explanation, but absolutely not for 'Setting Goals'.C. identify a commonality between politics and tourism -
Wrong. What would the commonality be? D. emphasize the difficulty involved in determining facts -
Right. Looks like the right answer - the whole block where this line is mentioned paints a picture of the painstakingly difficult process of determining the truth.E. indicate the universality of Paglen’s message -
Wrong. How would this phrase indicate universality?_______________________________________
Book a free demo session -
http://www.calendly.com/aakkashgmatInformative reads about the Verbal Section - reddit.com/u/Random_Teen_
Aakkash Singh 2 weeks self-taught 90V Verbal Tutor