Few areas of neuron behavioral research seemed more promising is the e

Question

Few areas of neuron behavioral research seemed more promising in the early sixties than that investigating the relationship between protein synthesis and learning. The conceptual framework for the research was derived directly from molecular biology, which had shown that genetic information is stored in nucleic acids and expressed in proteins why not acquired information as well. The first step towards establishing a connection between protein synthesis and learning seemed to be to block memory (cause adhesion) by interrupting the production of proteins. We were fortunate in finding a non lethal dosage of puromycin that could, it first appealed, thoroughly inhibit brain protein synthesis as well as reliability produce amnesia.

Before the actual connection between protein synthesis and learning could be established however we began to have doubts about whether inhibition of protein synthesis was in fact the method by which puromycin produced amnesia. First, other drugs, glutavimides themselves potent protein synthesis inhibitors either failed to cause amnesia in some situations where it could easily be induced by puromycin or produced an amnesia with a different time course from that of puromycin. Second, puromycin was found to inhabit protein synthesis by breaking certain amino acid chain, and the resulting fragments were suspected of being the actual cause of amnesia is some eases. Third, puromycin was reported to cause abnormalities in the train, including seizures. Thus, not only were decreased protein synthesis and amnesia dissociated, but alternative mechanism for the amnestic action of puromycin were readily suggested.

So, puromycin turned out to be a disappointment. It came to be regarded as a poor agent for amnesia studies, although, of course, it was poor only in the context of our original paradigm of protein synthesis inhibition. In our frustration, our initial response was simply to change drugs rather than our conceptual orientation. After many such disappointments, however, it now appears unlikely, that we will make a firm connection between protein synthesis and learning merely by pursuing the approaches of the past our experience with drugs has shown that all the amnestic agents, often interfere with memory in ways that seem unrelated to their inhibition of protein synthesis. More importantly, the notion that the interruption or intensification of protein production in the train can be related in cause and effect fashion to learning now seems simplistic and unproductive.  Remove the battery from a car and the car will not go. Drive the car a long distance at high speed and the battery will become more highly charged. Neither of these facts proves that the battery power the car, only knowledge of the overall automotive system will reveal its mechanism of locomotion and the role of the battery within the system .  
 1 
 D 
 Q1. This passage was most likely excerpted from

(A) a diary kept by a practicing neurobehavioral researcher
(B) a newspaper article on recent advances in the biochemistry of learning
(C) a technical article on experimental techniques in the field of molecular biology
(D) an article summarizing a series of scientific investigations in neurobehavioral research
(E) a book review in a leading journal devoted to genetic research
 2 
 E 
 Q2. The primary purpose of the passage is to show that extensive experimentation has

(A) demonstrated the importance of amino-acid fragmentation in the induction of amnesia
(B) cast doubt on the value of puromycin in the neurobehavioral investigation of learning
(C) revealed the importance of amnesia in the neurobehavioral study of learning
(D) not yet demonstrated the applicability of molecular biology to neurobehavioral research
(E) not supported the hypothesis that learning is directly dependent on protein synthesis

3 
 C 
 Q3. According to the passage, neurobehaviorists initially based their belief that protein synthesis was related to learning on which of the following?

(A) Traditional theories about learning
(B) New techniques in protein synthesis
(C) Previous discoveries in molecular biology
(D) Specific research into learning and amnesia
(E) Historic experiments on the effects of puromycin

4 
 D 
 Q4. The passage mentions all of the following as effects of puromycin EXCEPT:

(A) brain seizures
(B) memory loss
(C) inhibition of protein synthesis
(D) destruction of genetic information
(E) fragmentation of amino-acid chains

5 
 A 
 Q5. It can be inferred from the passage that, after puromycin was perceived to be a disappointment, researchers did which of the following?

(A) They ceased to experiment with puromycin and shifted to other promising protein-synthesis inhibitors.
(B) They ceased to experiment with puromycin, and reexamined through experiments the relationship between genetic information and acquired information.
(C) The continued to experiment with puromycin, but applied their results to other facets of memory research.
(D) They continued to experiment with puromycin, but also tried other protein-synthesis inhibitors.
(E) They continued to experiment with puromycin until a new neuroanatomical framework was developed.

6 
 D 
 Q6. In the example of the car ( Highlighted ), the battery is meant to represent which of the following elements in the neurobehavioral research program?

(A) Puromycin
(B) Amnesia
(C) Glutarimides
(D) Protein synthesis
(E) Acquired information

7 
 E 
 Q7. Which of the following statements could be most likely to come after the last sentence of the passage?

(A) The failures of the past, however, must not impede further research into the amnestic action of protein-synthesis inhibitors.
(B) It is a legacy of this research, therefore, that molecular biology’s genetic models have led to disagreements among neurobehaviorists.
(C) The ambivalent status of current research, however, should not deter neurobehaviorists from exploring the deeper connections between protein production and learning.
(D) It is important in the future, therefore, for behavioral biochemists to emphasize more strongly the place of their specific findings within the overall protein-synthesis model of learning.
(E) It is important in the future, therefore, for behavioral biochemists to focus on the several components of the total learning system.

RC Butler 2021  -  Practice Two RC Questions Everyday.   
Passage # 178 Date: 05-May-2021
 This question is a part of RC Butler 2021 .  Click here for Details

tahvorian · Answer

"our initial response was simply to change  dregs  rather than our conceptual orientation. After many such disappointments, however, it now appears"
Are here the grammar issue? If so, are there any else? Many sentences seems overtangled.

bM22 · Answer

Hi  tahvorian ,

The sentence: "our initial response was simply to change  dregs  rather than our conceptual orientation. After many such disappointments, however, it now appears" is correct.
"Dregs" means left over of some solution.

This passage is a GRE Passage, you can expect certain GRE passages to be on the harder side in terms of vocabulary.

Thanks.

prem883 · Answer

can anyone explain the answers of 21, 22, 25,26 please ??

AnirudhaS · Answer

Hi  bm2201  I think the our friend is right here. There are a lot of mistakes in this passage, seems someone typed in a hurry and made silly mistakes. This rather reads like my AWA section. Also I think in this instance "drugs" makes sens (and not dregs). Some of the problems are highlighted given below:

Few areas of neuron behavioral research seemed more promising  is      the early sixties than that investigating the relationship between protein synthesis and learning. The conceptual framework for the research was derived directly from molecular biology, which had shown that genetic information is stored in nucleic acids and expressed in proteins why not acquired information as well. The first step towards establishing a connection between protein synthesis and learning seemed to be to block memory (cause adhesion) by interrupting the production of proteins. We were fortunate in finding a non lethal dosage of puromycin that could, it first appealed, thoroughly inhibit brain protein synthesis as well as reliability produce amnesia.

Before the actual connection between protein synthesis and learning could be established however we began to have  douche      about whether inhibition of protein synthesis was in fact the method by which puromycin produced amnesia. First,  ocher      drugs, glutavimides themselves potent protein synthesis inhibitors either failed to cause amnesia in some situations where it could easily be induced by puromycin or produced an amnesia with a different time course from that of puromycin. Second, puromycin was found to inhabit protein synthesis by breaking certain amino acid  chaim     , and the resulting fragments were suspected of being the actual cause of amnesia is some eases. Third, puromycin was reported to cause abnormalities in the train, including seizures. Thus, not only were decreased protein synthesis and amnesia dissociated, but alternative mechanism for the amnestic action of puromycin were readily suggested.

So, puromycin turned out to be a disappointment. It came to be regarded as a poor agent for amnesia studies, although, of course, it was poor only in the context of our original paradigm of protein synthesis inhibition. In our frustration, our initial response was simply to change  dregs      rather than our conceptual orientation. After many such disappointments, however, it now appears unlikely, that we will make a firm connection between protein synthesis and learning merely by pursuing the approaches of the past our experience with drugs has shown that all the amnestic agents, often interfere with memory in ways that seem unrelated to their inhibition of protein synthesis. More importantly, the notion that the interruption or intensification of protein production in the train can be related in cause and  affect      fashion to learning  non      seems simplistic and unproductive. Remove the battery from a car and the car will not  go Drive      the car a long distance at high speed and the battery will become more highly charged. Neither of these facts proves that the battery power the car, only knowledge of the overall automotive system will reveal  it      mechanism of locomotion and the role of the battery  with in      the system.

RiteshGadave · Answer

Talking about question No.1 .......In  our  frustration,  our  initial response was simply to change drugs rather than our conceptual orientation. ....this made me choose option A...Can anyone please explain this?...
 Sajjad1994  Sir please explain this..

kntombat · Answer

Can someone give a reason as to why is A not the answer of question 1 ?
 GMATNinja ,  AndrewN ,  CrackVerbal ,  IanStewart ,  GMATWhizTeam ,  EMPOWERgmatVerbal  ?

D seems a little odd as the scientific investigations is plural whereas in this passage there is only one scientific research going on for which some set of experiments have been done.

Fdambro294 · Answer

I don’t think you will get an expert response.

This can not be an official GRE Passage. If it is, someone did a poor job copying the original.

The sentences are very poorly written with many typos. Might be best to steer clear of this one....

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Few areas of neuron behavioral research seemed more promising is the e

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Few areas of neuron behavioral research seemed more promising is the e

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards