Answers are in
bold.
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. reconcile conflicting points of view
B. analyze a social issue
C. advocate further researchD. challenge a research finding
E. summarize a research finding
Explanation of question 1I have said this before that in finding out the main purpose of the passage it is critical to know about the tone of the author. In this passage the author has a strong opinion about leagalised gambling. And the opinion is neither positive or negative. The author also says the economic studies are not good and the social studies are non-existent. So he is therefore advocating more research as evident from the concluding line as well - "In order for elected officials and their constituents to choose an appropriate direction with respect to legal gambling,
high quality research is needed that will focus on both the social and economic impacts of this industry." Therefore C is a strong option but lets look at the other alternatives as well.
A - The author is NOT reconciling. Out.
B - He is analysing a social issue no doubt, but he is also analysing the ECONOMIC aspects of it as well, which should be included in the main idea of the passage.
C - Discussed above, looks grand.
D - Well, he is challenging a finding which is spot on here - "However, much of the existing research on the economic impact of gambling is
flawed by insufficient data, poor or underdeveloped methodology, or researchers' biases. Furthermore, high-quality and relevant research focusing on the social effects of gambling is
virtually nonexistent." But is that the only thing discussed in the passage, and is challenging the idea the main purpose, surely not.
E - He also summarises the research, but is that the main purpose? I mean the author's intention was not to just summarise, was it? He is actually going further than that and saying that he wants more and better research to get to the extent of this problem.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The author refers to "testimonial evidence" (Highlighted) most likely in order to
A. imply a lack of rigor in identifying evidence to be includedB. indicate that the evidence was given under oath
C. suggest that a rigorous standard in including evidence was followed
D. emphasize the probative value of the statements in question
E. draw a contrast with the results of the survey referenced in the following sentence
Explanation of question 2A - this is absolutely perfect. The author here says that the research is based on people who are OVERLY ENTHUSIASTIC. So basically the author is not happy with the 'selection criteria' of these people for the research. Hence 'lack of rigor' in identifying the evidence is spot on here.
B - Out of scope
C - It says a lack of rigourous standard sure, but does it suggests one? No, it just implies there is a lack of riorous standards. Out.
D - the only problem I have with D is that I do not know the meaning of probative. A lot of times we would face such a scenario. How I deal with this is trying to find the root word of this word probative. Probative might come from probe, which means to probe - or to look into a matter in details, for example the inspector is probing into this theft case. So is it to emphasize the probing value (lets say compelling evidence) of the statement in question? Well it is the opposite of this, isint it. Out.
E - Definitely not to draw any contrast, check the summary we found out in A. Out.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. The author refers to the unemployment rate in Atlantic City most likely in order to
A. indicate a problem with the NORC survey
B. provide an example of evidence cited in favor of legalized gamblingC. illustrate that a correlation does not necessarily represent causality
D. confirm the validity of the NORC survey
E. suggest a negative consequence of legalized gambling
Explanation of question 3For this question, a holistic approach is quite better. It is pretty clear that the author uses unemployment rate in Atlantic city to illustrate how well legalised gambling is working in favour of the community where it is set up. That is exactly why the author says that the unemployment rate goes down as mentioned here - "unemployment rate decreased from 12.2 percent in 1976 to 7.8 percent in 1998" It is therefore without a shadow of doubt that B is our answer.