As inferred from the passage, which of the following cannot be included in the various achievements made by the science?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

The ancients never believed in the noblest and most ennobling ideal of modern science –– that man can change and improve nature. The abolition of disease; the curtailment of labour; the suppression of physical pain; the conquest of distance, planetary and interplanetary; penetration of the heights and the depths, the deserts and the poles; interrogation of nature far beyond the limits of our own senses and the construction of machinery to continue that questioning and then change the answers into acts –– these magnificent achievements have given modern man a new freedom which raises him higher above the animals, and allows him, with justice, to boast of being wiser than his ancestors.

What is the theme of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

The ancients never believed in the noblest and most ennobling ideal of modern science –– that man can change and improve nature. The abolition of disease; the curtailment of labour; the suppression of physical pain; the conquest of distance, planetary and interplanetary; penetration of the heights and the depths, the deserts and the poles; interrogation of nature far beyond the limits of our own senses and the construction of machinery to continue that questioning and then change the answers into acts –– these magnificent achievements have given modern man a new freedom which raises him higher above the animals, and allows him, with justice, to boast of being wiser than his ancestors.

What is the central idea of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

But, indeed, the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries . . . . . It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error, of prevailing against the dungeon and the stake. Men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error, and a sufficient application of legal or even of social penalties will generally succeed in stopping the propagation of either. The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances falls on a time when from favorable circumstances it escapes persecution until it has made such head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it.

What do you infer from the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate.

According to the passage, what is the implication of the line: “economy favoured … end of the 1990s? (line 11).

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In 1991, the U.S. economy pulled out of a yearlong recession and entered a period of sustained economic growth that was to become the longest boom in the nation’s history by the start of the twenty-first century. Fueled by the technology revolution, the development of the Internet, and globalization, a flurry of entrepreneurial activity led to the rise of new businesses (albeit some short-lived) and the rapid expansion of existing ones. The economy favored the American worker with national unemployment rates at around 4 percent toward the end of the 1990s, their lowest since the late 1960s, drawing former welfare recipients, minorities, and the long-term unemployed into the workforce in unprecedented numbers. Demand for highly skilled workers also surged as the computer age gathered force, creating a new class of “overnight” millionaires. Though many Americans have clearly benefited from this expansion, commentators are alarmed by what they contend is the widening gap between high-wage earners and the rest of the workforce. According to former secretary of labor Robert Reich, “[In 2000,] the richest 2.7 million (10) Americans, comprising the top 1 percent, . . . [had] as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million put together, and . . . [they had] 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.” Unquestionably, the “new economy” has increased earnings for highly skilled workers—law firms, investment banks, and computer companies have spared no expense in attracting and holding on to employees in a tight labor market, where entry-level salaries have reached upwards of $120,000.

While the wages of skilled workers have increased, however, the wages of low-income workers have actually fallen over the past 30 years. The federal minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, was worth nearly two dollars less in 1999 than in 1968, according to a study on low-wage earners by Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt of the Economic Policy Institute. Explain Bernstein and Schmitt, “Back in 1968, full-time work at the minimum wage put a . . . [one-parent family with two children] about $1300 (in 1999 dollars) above the poverty line… [In 1999,] that same family (20) would be $2700 below the line.” As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.4 million out of the 130 million workers nationwide earned the minimum wage in 1999. Over 20 million Americans are considered low-wage workers, earning under $7.15 an hour, and many of them are parents supporting families.

In response to the stagnating wages of low-wage workers and the widening income gap between rich and poor Americans, unions, community groups, and religious organizations have begun promoting the idea of a “living wage,” defined as the wage necessary for one earner to support a family of four above the poverty line of $17,000 a year. This wage works out to about $8.20 an hour for a forty-hour workweek. The living wage idea is based on the belief that in a society that discourages dependency and where work is highly regarded, no one should work full-time and still struggle to keep a family out of poverty. In 1994, Baltimore was one of the first cities to enact a living-wage ordinance, establishing a government-mandated hourly wage of $7.70 for contractors and subcontractors doing (30) business with the city. Since that time, numerous cities around the country have passed living wage ordinances, with hourly wages ranging from around $8 to $11. Advocates are also pushing for federal living wage legislation to replace the minimum wage on a national scale. 

Living-wage proponents argue that the insufficient federal minimum wage is in part responsible for the large number of working poor in the United States. David Moberg, a senior fellow of the Nation Institute, a liberal research organization, argues that in paying low wages, businesses are in fact being subsidized by taxpayers, who must make up the difference in workers’ low pay and lack of health insurance with medical care, food stamps, and tax credits. Contends Moberg, “Why should businesses be allowed to slough off these costs onto taxpayers? And if taxpayers are ultimately paying the wages of contract employees anyway, why not simply pay the employees a living wage directly?” Contrary to conventional economists who believe that raising the minimum wage reduces employment and (40) hurts the poor, Moberg asserts “employers compensate for higher wages by managing better, . . . saving on turnover and recruitment expenses, and gaining productivity from a more motivated work force.” 

Opponents contend that living wage laws are not the right approach to correct the income gap between high-wage and low-wage workers. According to a report on the American workforce by the Hudson Institute, a conservative policy research organization, education is the key to better wages; the earnings of college-educated workers are substantially higher than those with only a high school diploma. In addition, fears that economic inequality is rising are based on “‘static’ snapshots of income distribution at a particular moment in time,” according to the report. It is more realistic, in the opinion of the authors, to examine whether low wage earners are increasing their earnings over time. Concludes the Hudson Institute, “Data from . . . [a] U.S. Treasury Department . . . study [finds that] 86 percent of those in the lowest income bracket in 1979 moved up to a higher bracket within nine years. Two-(50) thirds of these Americans moved into the top three quintiles, and 15 percent of them moved all the way up into the top quintile of earners.” 

Critics further argue that under the artificially high wages proposed by living wage advocates, low-skilled workers will have a harder time finding work in the first place, let alone moving up the income ladder, as businesses shed workers they can no longer afford to keep on the payroll. W. Michael Cox, a senior vice president and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter at the Dallas Morning News, assert, “If government dictum replaces market reality, jobs will be lost or never created… What’s worse, local governments’ intervention in the free market sends an anti-business signal: Don’t come here. Go elsewhere. And companies will do that, taking their jobs and tax payments with them.” As the living wage movement expands to more cities, and threatens to move onto state and national levels, Cox and Alm foresee drastic consequences for America’s economy, (60) with slower business growth and higher rates of unemployment.

All of the following can be the reasons behind the concept of living wages, except

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In 1991, the U.S. economy pulled out of a yearlong recession and entered a period of sustained economic growth that was to become the longest boom in the nation’s history by the start of the twenty-first century. Fueled by the technology revolution, the development of the Internet, and globalization, a flurry of entrepreneurial activity led to the rise of new businesses (albeit some short-lived) and the rapid expansion of existing ones. The economy favored the American worker with national unemployment rates at around 4 percent toward the end of the 1990s, their lowest since the late 1960s, drawing former welfare recipients, minorities, and the long-term unemployed into the workforce in unprecedented numbers. Demand for highly skilled workers also surged as the computer age gathered force, creating a new class of “overnight” millionaires. Though many Americans have clearly benefited from this expansion, commentators are alarmed by what they contend is the widening gap between high-wage earners and the rest of the workforce. According to former secretary of labor Robert Reich, “[In 2000,] the richest 2.7 million (10) Americans, comprising the top 1 percent, . . . [had] as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million put together, and . . . [they had] 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.” Unquestionably, the “new economy” has increased earnings for highly skilled workers—law firms, investment banks, and computer companies have spared no expense in attracting and holding on to employees in a tight labor market, where entry-level salaries have reached upwards of $120,000.

While the wages of skilled workers have increased, however, the wages of low-income workers have actually fallen over the past 30 years. The federal minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, was worth nearly two dollars less in 1999 than in 1968, according to a study on low-wage earners by Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt of the Economic Policy Institute. Explain Bernstein and Schmitt, “Back in 1968, full-time work at the minimum wage put a . . . [one-parent family with two children] about $1300 (in 1999 dollars) above the poverty line… [In 1999,] that same family (20) would be $2700 below the line.” As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.4 million out of the 130 million workers nationwide earned the minimum wage in 1999. Over 20 million Americans are considered low-wage workers, earning under $7.15 an hour, and many of them are parents supporting families.

In response to the stagnating wages of low-wage workers and the widening income gap between rich and poor Americans, unions, community groups, and religious organizations have begun promoting the idea of a “living wage,” defined as the wage necessary for one earner to support a family of four above the poverty line of $17,000 a year. This wage works out to about $8.20 an hour for a forty-hour workweek. The living wage idea is based on the belief that in a society that discourages dependency and where work is highly regarded, no one should work full-time and still struggle to keep a family out of poverty. In 1994, Baltimore was one of the first cities to enact a living-wage ordinance, establishing a government-mandated hourly wage of $7.70 for contractors and subcontractors doing (30) business with the city. Since that time, numerous cities around the country have passed living wage ordinances, with hourly wages ranging from around $8 to $11. Advocates are also pushing for federal living wage legislation to replace the minimum wage on a national scale. 

Living-wage proponents argue that the insufficient federal minimum wage is in part responsible for the large number of working poor in the United States. David Moberg, a senior fellow of the Nation Institute, a liberal research organization, argues that in paying low wages, businesses are in fact being subsidized by taxpayers, who must make up the difference in workers’ low pay and lack of health insurance with medical care, food stamps, and tax credits. Contends Moberg, “Why should businesses be allowed to slough off these costs onto taxpayers? And if taxpayers are ultimately paying the wages of contract employees anyway, why not simply pay the employees a living wage directly?” Contrary to conventional economists who believe that raising the minimum wage reduces employment and (40) hurts the poor, Moberg asserts “employers compensate for higher wages by managing better, . . . saving on turnover and recruitment expenses, and gaining productivity from a more motivated work force.” 

Opponents contend that living wage laws are not the right approach to correct the income gap between high-wage and low-wage workers. According to a report on the American workforce by the Hudson Institute, a conservative policy research organization, education is the key to better wages; the earnings of college-educated workers are substantially higher than those with only a high school diploma. In addition, fears that economic inequality is rising are based on “‘static’ snapshots of income distribution at a particular moment in time,” according to the report. It is more realistic, in the opinion of the authors, to examine whether low wage earners are increasing their earnings over time. Concludes the Hudson Institute, “Data from . . . [a] U.S. Treasury Department . . . study [finds that] 86 percent of those in the lowest income bracket in 1979 moved up to a higher bracket within nine years. Two-(50) thirds of these Americans moved into the top three quintiles, and 15 percent of them moved all the way up into the top quintile of earners.” 

Critics further argue that under the artificially high wages proposed by living wage advocates, low-skilled workers will have a harder time finding work in the first place, let alone moving up the income ladder, as businesses shed workers they can no longer afford to keep on the payroll. W. Michael Cox, a senior vice president and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter at the Dallas Morning News, assert, “If government dictum replaces market reality, jobs will be lost or never created… What’s worse, local governments’ intervention in the free market sends an anti-business signal: Don’t come here. Go elsewhere. And companies will do that, taking their jobs and tax payments with them.” As the living wage movement expands to more cities, and threatens to move onto state and national levels, Cox and Alm foresee drastic consequences for America’s economy, (60) with slower business growth and higher rates of unemployment.

What do you infer from the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

At 12 : 01 a.m. on Jan. 1, ships laden with khaki slacks and cashmere sweaters will leave the port of Hong Kong. Their destination will be the Gap, Printemps, Wal-Mart and a slew of other retail stores, eventually ending up in closets from Paris to Peoria. These textile and apparel exports will be the first to head to America and Europe in a brand-new post-quota world, envisioned some 10 years ago when the World Trade Organization ordered that clothing import quotas be abolished by 2005. In theoretical terms, that means that China, Indonesia, Pakistan and other countries that produce textiles and apparel can ship as much as they want to the United States. If companies like the Limited and Banana Republic can buy specific clothing items from the cheapest and most efficient producer, no matter where that producer happens to reside, then American consumers - who have borne part of the cost of protecting the nation's textile industry - should see a sharp reduction in the price of clothing.

The possible reasons for the existence of the given trend being present in only the industrialized countries can be _________________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) The United States has consistently led the world in the number of marriages each year, with a marriage rate roughly twice as high as those in other industrialized countries. It has also consistently led the world in the divorce rate. During the 1960s, the divorce rate in the United States began to climb rapidly. In 1960, there were nine divorces for every thousand married women; by 1970, the number had

(10) shot up to fifteen per thousand. Divorces peaked in 1980 at twenty-three per thousand and have since leveled off at twenty-one per thousand married women in the early 1990s.
Concerned about the country’s high divorce rate, clergy, academics, sociologists, politicians, and others have called for measures to slow it down. One proposal is to return to fault-based divorce, which was the law of the land prior to 1969. Divorce then

(20) was granted only in specific circumstances, generally limited to infidelity, physical or mental cruelty, or desertion. Couples who wished to divorce had to prove in court that one spouse was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Only the innocent party was allowed to sue for divorce, thus ensuring that all divorces granted were approved by both spouses. If one spouse did not want a divorce and was not guilty of any

(30) transgression, a divorce would not be granted. If both partners were found guilty of fault, they were deemed to deserve each other and no divorce was granted.
California’s no-fault divorce statute, signed into law in 1969 by then governor Ronald Reagan, started a cultural revolution that saw forty-four states adopting no-fault divorce within the next five years, and all fifty states adopting it by 1984. With the advent of no-

(40) fault divorce, married couples did not have to prove who was responsible for the broken marriage. A divorce could be granted based solely on incompatibility or the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Opponents of no-fault divorce contend that the relaxed rules concerning divorce are behind the nation’s high divorce rate. When a divorce is easy to obtain, they claim, it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to try to

(50) repair it. No-fault divorce foes cite a 1995 study in the Journal of Marriage and the Family that found that the divorce rate increased between 15 and 25 percent in the three years following the adoption of no-fault divorce laws. 
No-fault divorce also allows one spouse to dissolve a marriage at any time for any reason—or for no reason at all—regardless of the wishes of the other spouse, opponents

(60) assert. The ability to make such a unilateral decision abrogates the marriage contract, contends Lenore Weitzman, author of The Divorce Revolution. She maintains that no-fault divorce transforms marriage into a “time-limited contingent arrangement rather than a lifelong commitment.” No-fault divorce laws also give all the power to the spouse who wants to get divorced, she asserts, thus “elevating one’s ‘right’ to a divorce over a

 (70) spouse’s ‘right’ to remain married.” What society must do, Weitzman concludes, is return to the strengths of fault-based divorce, in which the law protects the spouse who remains true to the marriage contract rather than blessing the one who wants to break it. 
Supporters of no-fault divorce argue that changing the law will not necessarily lower the number of divorces. As Hanna Rosin writes in the May 6, 1996, issue of the New

(80) Republic, “Correlation does not prove causation.” She maintains that the American divorce rate has been rising since the 1800s and almost doubled between 1960 and 1970, years before most states had adopted no-fault divorce laws. “The sudden spike in the three years following the reform came from a backlog of cases,” Rosin claims, and was merely a response to changes in America’s culture brought on by the sexual revolution.

(90) Returning to fault-based divorce would not result in a lower divorce rate or make marriages last longer, she contends. 
In addition, a return to fault-based divorce would hurt the families it is trying to protect, no-fault supporters argue. According to Constance Ahrons, author of The Good Divorce and director of the marriage and family-therapy program at the University of Southern California, “When one spouse must

(100) prove the other to be ‘at fault,’ divorce becomes a pitched battle between adversaries who each must prove the other committed adultery, spousal abuse or child abuse or destroyed the home. . . . Anger escalates and continues for years or decades following the divorce.” Furthermore, she contends, litigation in fault-based divorces harms the children who are forced to watch their parents battle in a long, vicious war. No-

(110) fault divorce reduces the acrimony, she maintains, and provides a “civilized arena in which marriage can be terminated while parents continue to be parents.” 
The impact that changing divorce laws would have on the divorce rate is debatable. Both sides of the no-fault divorce issue recognize the importance of marriage and family; however, each believes its approach to divorce is the best way to preserve the family

(120) and protect both the parents and the children.

What does the author convey via the term 'Keystone' in line 7?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) “Truth-seeking is an imperfect process. . . . If mistakes are to be made, they should be made in the direction of making sure that an innocent person is not convicted.” —Jay M. Feinman, Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About the American Legal System
One of the keystone responsibilities of the American legal system is to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial.

(10) However, the perfection of DNA tests have recently proven that on numerous occasions people were arrested and convicted of crimes they did not commit. The results of these tests point out that the legal system is imperfect.
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the genetic code that determines an individual’s physical characteristics. It can be found in the nucleus of every cell. Because everyone has a unique DNA code (except identical multiple births),

(20) forensic testing on hair, semen, or blood left at a crime scene may determine whether a defendant committed the crimes for which he or she has been accused. 
Law professor Barry Scheck has advocated using DNA in ambiguous cases in a nationwide effort he calls the Innocence Project, which provides free legal assistance for inmates who have proven that DNA testing may make a difference in the outcome of a

(30) retrial. The project has helped exonerate more than thirty-five prisoners. In an interview with the television program Frontline, Scheck stated, “This is total system failure. We’re not talking about some procedural due process matter; some matter of unfairness in the way the trial was conducted. We’re talking about people who are actually innocent. And that has to command our respect and attention and concern unlike any other kind of case.”

(40)DNA testing has, in effect, called into question more traditional evidence in determining guilt such as eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony leads to an average of seventy-seven thousand arrests every year. Studies have found that faulty eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of false convictions. A 1997 report by the Constitutional Rights Foundation states, “Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions

(50)and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes.” According to Boston defense attorney James Doyle, thirty-six of the first forty prisoners who were released after DNA testing had been convicted because of eyewitness testimony.
Several ways that eyewitnesses have been asked to identify suspects may compound the inaccuracy of their testimony. Criminal lineups, for example, seem to result in the

(60) witness selecting the person who most closely resembles the person he or she saw, regardless of whether the actual perpetrator is in the lineup. Other factors include the amount of time that passed between the
crime and the identification, as well as police and prosecutors influencing the eyewitness. Race also affects an eyewitness’s ability to successfully identify a suspect. Studies have found that people are 15 percent more likely

 (70) to accurately identify suspects of their own race. 
The behavior of police can also affect a person’s ability to receive a fair trial. Despite the presence of Miranda laws— which have 
largely eliminated physical and psychological torture of suspects—many critics of the police contend that defendants are compelled into confessing to crimes they did not commit. For example, Earl Washington was convicted of

(80) murder in 1984 and sentenced to death; he was later exonerated by DNA testing. Washington’s lawyers argued during his murder trial that his IQ of 69 had made it easier for police to lead him into a false confession. In an article for American Prospect, Alexander Nguyen writes, “[The] tactics police departments have developed are so effective that police have even been able to extract false confessions from

(90) innocent suspects—a baffling phenomenon, but evidence that interrogations have continued to be psychologically compelling.” These tactics can include lying to a suspect about an accomplice’s confession or the existence of witnesses and evidence. 
The problem of wrongful convictions is one of the many issues facing the American legal system.

Basic inference that can be drawn from the fourth paragraph can be that

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In 1991, the U.S. economy pulled out of a yearlong recession and entered a period of sustained economic growth that was to become the longest boom in the nation’s history by the start of the twenty-first century. Fueled by the technology revolution, the development of the Internet, and globalization, a flurry of entrepreneurial activity led to the rise of new businesses (albeit some short-lived) and the rapid expansion of existing ones. The economy favored the American worker with national unemployment rates at around 4 percent toward the end of the 1990s, their lowest since the late 1960s, drawing former welfare recipients, minorities, and the long-term unemployed into the workforce in unprecedented numbers. Demand for highly skilled workers also surged as the computer age gathered force, creating a new class of “overnight” millionaires. Though many Americans have clearly benefited from this expansion, commentators are alarmed by what they contend is the widening gap between high-wage earners and the rest of the workforce. According to former secretary of labor Robert Reich, “[In 2000,] the richest 2.7 million (10) Americans, comprising the top 1 percent, . . . [had] as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million put together, and . . . [they had] 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.” Unquestionably, the “new economy” has increased earnings for highly skilled workers—law firms, investment banks, and computer companies have spared no expense in attracting and holding on to employees in a tight labor market, where entry-level salaries have reached upwards of $120,000.

While the wages of skilled workers have increased, however, the wages of low-income workers have actually fallen over the past 30 years. The federal minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, was worth nearly two dollars less in 1999 than in 1968, according to a study on low-wage earners by Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt of the Economic Policy Institute. Explain Bernstein and Schmitt, “Back in 1968, full-time work at the minimum wage put a . . . [one-parent family with two children] about $1300 (in 1999 dollars) above the poverty line… [In 1999,] that same family (20) would be $2700 below the line.” As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.4 million out of the 130 million workers nationwide earned the minimum wage in 1999. Over 20 million Americans are considered low-wage workers, earning under $7.15 an hour, and many of them are parents supporting families.

In response to the stagnating wages of low-wage workers and the widening income gap between rich and poor Americans, unions, community groups, and religious organizations have begun promoting the idea of a “living wage,” defined as the wage necessary for one earner to support a family of four above the poverty line of $17,000 a year. This wage works out to about $8.20 an hour for a forty-hour workweek. The living wage idea is based on the belief that in a society that discourages dependency and where work is highly regarded, no one should work full-time and still struggle to keep a family out of poverty. In 1994, Baltimore was one of the first cities to enact a living-wage ordinance, establishing a government-mandated hourly wage of $7.70 for contractors and subcontractors doing (30) business with the city. Since that time, numerous cities around the country have passed living wage ordinances, with hourly wages ranging from around $8 to $11. Advocates are also pushing for federal living wage legislation to replace the minimum wage on a national scale. 

Living-wage proponents argue that the insufficient federal minimum wage is in part responsible for the large number of working poor in the United States. David Moberg, a senior fellow of the Nation Institute, a liberal research organization, argues that in paying low wages, businesses are in fact being subsidized by taxpayers, who must make up the difference in workers’ low pay and lack of health insurance with medical care, food stamps, and tax credits. Contends Moberg, “Why should businesses be allowed to slough off these costs onto taxpayers? And if taxpayers are ultimately paying the wages of contract employees anyway, why not simply pay the employees a living wage directly?” Contrary to conventional economists who believe that raising the minimum wage reduces employment and (40) hurts the poor, Moberg asserts “employers compensate for higher wages by managing better, . . . saving on turnover and recruitment expenses, and gaining productivity from a more motivated work force.” 

Opponents contend that living wage laws are not the right approach to correct the income gap between high-wage and low-wage workers. According to a report on the American workforce by the Hudson Institute, a conservative policy research organization, education is the key to better wages; the earnings of college-educated workers are substantially higher than those with only a high school diploma. In addition, fears that economic inequality is rising are based on “‘static’ snapshots of income distribution at a particular moment in time,” according to the report. It is more realistic, in the opinion of the authors, to examine whether low wage earners are increasing their earnings over time. Concludes the Hudson Institute, “Data from . . . [a] U.S. Treasury Department . . . study [finds that] 86 percent of those in the lowest income bracket in 1979 moved up to a higher bracket within nine years. Two-(50) thirds of these Americans moved into the top three quintiles, and 15 percent of them moved all the way up into the top quintile of earners.” 

Critics further argue that under the artificially high wages proposed by living wage advocates, low-skilled workers will have a harder time finding work in the first place, let alone moving up the income ladder, as businesses shed workers they can no longer afford to keep on the payroll. W. Michael Cox, a senior vice president and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter at the Dallas Morning News, assert, “If government dictum replaces market reality, jobs will be lost or never created… What’s worse, local governments’ intervention in the free market sends an anti-business signal: Don’t come here. Go elsewhere. And companies will do that, taking their jobs and tax payments with them.” As the living wage movement expands to more cities, and threatens to move onto state and national levels, Cox and Alm foresee drastic consequences for America’s economy, (60) with slower business growth and higher rates of unemployment.

It can be inferred from the passage that __________________________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) Political ideologies can be visualized as points on a straight line, with liberals to the left of center and conservatives to the right. Located near the center of the line are political moderates. At the far points at either end are the extremists, both liberal and conservative. 
Liberals and conservatives differ primarily in their view of the proper role of government in 
the lives of citizens. While liberals tend to

(10) favor the federal government taking an active role in correcting social inequities, regulating business activities, and protecting the environment, conservatives tend to mistrust federal interference in these affairs. Conservatives believe that, to the extent that any regulation is necessary, these functions are best performed by state and local governments. Moreover, by definition, 
conservatives tend to be wary of change in

(20) society while liberals tend to favor change.
Both the liberal and conservative camps harbor extremists who favor revolutionary changes. Liberal extremists are often called radicals while conservative extremists are often referred to as reactionaries. Extremists push an agenda that makes the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, uncomfortable. Often, the actions of extremist 
groups push through social or legal barriers.

(30) Some extremists engage in unlawful activity—such as the destruction of private property— in order to further their agenda and garner media attention for their cause. Many resort to violence.
The liberal extremist Theodore Kaczynski killed three people and injured twenty-three during an eighteen-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. The Unabomber—as Kaczynski is 
called—sent bombs through the mail to

(40) people he considered enemies of the Earth. One of the Unabomber’s victims was Gilbert Murray, president of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry group. Kaczynski believed that Murray and the timber industry were contributing to the destruction of the environment. Another victim, Thomas Mosser, an advertising executive, was falsely accused by the 
Unabomber of helping Exxon clean up its

(50) public image after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. In Kaczynski’s manifesto, he advocates a revolution whose object “will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis for the present society.” Many analysts like Ralph R. Reiland argue that Kaczynski took the ideas of environmental groups such as Earth First! and pushed them to the extreme. Far 
left radicals like Kaczynski, he notes, take the

(60) ideas of other extremists and violently act on them. Reiland writes: “In short, the Unabomber was no intellectual loner.” 
Leftist radicals are by no means the only extremists who promote violence, however. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two right-wing extremists associated with the militia movement, were convicted of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City in April 1995, killing 168

(70) people in the process. McVeigh and Nichols—like others from the militia movement—mistrust government just as Kaczynski does, but for very different reasons. Militia members assert that the government conspires to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Those involved in the militia movement contend that it is necessary to maintain a body of armed 
citizens and a stockpile of weapons in order

(80) to defend the people against a tyrannical government. In addition, many within the movement believe that the government protects minorities at the expense of white males. According to John M. Swomley, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, militias “are anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and tend to accept fundamentalist white-supremacist and anti-Semitic theology as well 
as the subordination of women.”

(90) As the above examples illustrate, left and right wing extremists— while holding antithetical views—often arrive at similar solutions to perceived problems. Both Kaczynski and McVeigh mistrusted government, for instance, and both used bombs as a means of challenging the status quo. The straight line that illustrates the political spectrum, in fact, often turns into a 
circle with extremists from the right and left

(100) occupying the same position. While the Unabomber did not go so far as to call for the abolition of government, other extremists on the left do. Anarchists, for example, believe that government is oppressive and always undesirable. They advocate a state ruled by no political authority. In this regard they are in agreement with those from the militia movement. However, while the aim of 
anarchists is to turn over the means of

 (110) production to the workers in order to achieve an egalitarian society, many of those in the militia movement desire a return to the days when white men had more authority and control.
Some commentators argue that extremist views—but not extremist actions—such as those held by Kaczynski and McVeigh can benefit society by acting as a catalyst for 
change. For example, Marc E. Fisher, a

(120) political and religious analyst, contends that Jesus Christ was considered an extremist in his time. Fisher argues that Christ’s doctrines of brotherly love and forgiveness, however, “began a movement that would eventually change the lives of millions, indeed billions, of people” for the good. Many detractors also considered 1960s civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist. King turned that label around, asking those who would

(130) maintain racial segregation: “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” 
Neither Jesus nor King advocated violence. However, many would argue that extremist ideas—while perhaps stimulating— inevitably lead to violent and hateful actions. For example, while members of the environmental 
group Earth First! Do not publicly endorse

(140) violence; some commentators contend that individuals like Theodore Kaczynski nevertheless feel encouraged by the group’s ideas to commit violent acts. And while not everyone in the militia movement advocates the bombing of federal buildings, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols evidently felt that the ideas espoused by militia groups justified the bombing that killed scores of people. At 
their worst, extreme ideas can lead to the

(150) deaths of vast numbers of people, as witnessed by the millions killed in World War II as a result of the hatred spewed by Adolf Hitler.

What does the author imply by “Correlation does not prove causation” in line 80?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) The United States has consistently led the world in the number of marriages each year, with a marriage rate roughly twice as high as those in other industrialized countries. It has also consistently led the world in the divorce rate. During the 1960s, the divorce rate in the United States began to climb rapidly. In 1960, there were nine divorces for every thousand married women; by 1970, the number had

(10) shot up to fifteen per thousand. Divorces peaked in 1980 at twenty-three per thousand and have since leveled off at twenty-one per thousand married women in the early 1990s.
Concerned about the country’s high divorce rate, clergy, academics, sociologists, politicians, and others have called for measures to slow it down. One proposal is to return to fault-based divorce, which was the law of the land prior to 1969. Divorce then

(20) was granted only in specific circumstances, generally limited to infidelity, physical or mental cruelty, or desertion. Couples who wished to divorce had to prove in court that one spouse was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Only the innocent party was allowed to sue for divorce, thus ensuring that all divorces granted were approved by both spouses. If one spouse did not want a divorce and was not guilty of any

(30) transgression, a divorce would not be granted. If both partners were found guilty of fault, they were deemed to deserve each other and no divorce was granted.
California’s no-fault divorce statute, signed into law in 1969 by then governor Ronald Reagan, started a cultural revolution that saw forty-four states adopting no-fault divorce within the next five years, and all fifty states adopting it by 1984. With the advent of no-

(40) fault divorce, married couples did not have to prove who was responsible for the broken marriage. A divorce could be granted based solely on incompatibility or the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Opponents of no-fault divorce contend that the relaxed rules concerning divorce are behind the nation’s high divorce rate. When a divorce is easy to obtain, they claim, it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to try to

(50) repair it. No-fault divorce foes cite a 1995 study in the Journal of Marriage and the Family that found that the divorce rate increased between 15 and 25 percent in the three years following the adoption of no-fault divorce laws. 
No-fault divorce also allows one spouse to dissolve a marriage at any time for any reason—or for no reason at all—regardless of the wishes of the other spouse, opponents

(60) assert. The ability to make such a unilateral decision abrogates the marriage contract, contends Lenore Weitzman, author of The Divorce Revolution. She maintains that no-fault divorce transforms marriage into a “time-limited contingent arrangement rather than a lifelong commitment.” No-fault divorce laws also give all the power to the spouse who wants to get divorced, she asserts, thus “elevating one’s ‘right’ to a divorce over a

 (70) spouse’s ‘right’ to remain married.” What society must do, Weitzman concludes, is return to the strengths of fault-based divorce, in which the law protects the spouse who remains true to the marriage contract rather than blessing the one who wants to break it. 
Supporters of no-fault divorce argue that changing the law will not necessarily lower the number of divorces. As Hanna Rosin writes in the May 6, 1996, issue of the New

(80) Republic, “Correlation does not prove causation.” She maintains that the American divorce rate has been rising since the 1800s and almost doubled between 1960 and 1970, years before most states had adopted no-fault divorce laws. “The sudden spike in the three years following the reform came from a backlog of cases,” Rosin claims, and was merely a response to changes in America’s culture brought on by the sexual revolution.

(90) Returning to fault-based divorce would not result in a lower divorce rate or make marriages last longer, she contends. 
In addition, a return to fault-based divorce would hurt the families it is trying to protect, no-fault supporters argue. According to Constance Ahrons, author of The Good Divorce and director of the marriage and family-therapy program at the University of Southern California, “When one spouse must

(100) prove the other to be ‘at fault,’ divorce becomes a pitched battle between adversaries who each must prove the other committed adultery, spousal abuse or child abuse or destroyed the home. . . . Anger escalates and continues for years or decades following the divorce.” Furthermore, she contends, litigation in fault-based divorces harms the children who are forced to watch their parents battle in a long, vicious war. No-

(110) fault divorce reduces the acrimony, she maintains, and provides a “civilized arena in which marriage can be terminated while parents continue to be parents.” 
The impact that changing divorce laws would have on the divorce rate is debatable. Both sides of the no-fault divorce issue recognize the importance of marriage and family; however, each believes its approach to divorce is the best way to preserve the family

(120) and protect both the parents and the children.

What can be referred from lines 91 - 115?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) Political ideologies can be visualized as points on a straight line, with liberals to the left of center and conservatives to the right. Located near the center of the line are political moderates. At the far points at either end are the extremists, both liberal and conservative. 
Liberals and conservatives differ primarily in their view of the proper role of government in 
the lives of citizens. While liberals tend to

(10) favor the federal government taking an active role in correcting social inequities, regulating business activities, and protecting the environment, conservatives tend to mistrust federal interference in these affairs. Conservatives believe that, to the extent that any regulation is necessary, these functions are best performed by state and local governments. Moreover, by definition, 
conservatives tend to be wary of change in

(20) society while liberals tend to favor change.
Both the liberal and conservative camps harbor extremists who favor revolutionary changes. Liberal extremists are often called radicals while conservative extremists are often referred to as reactionaries. Extremists push an agenda that makes the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, uncomfortable. Often, the actions of extremist 
groups push through social or legal barriers.

(30) Some extremists engage in unlawful activity—such as the destruction of private property— in order to further their agenda and garner media attention for their cause. Many resort to violence.
The liberal extremist Theodore Kaczynski killed three people and injured twenty-three during an eighteen-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. The Unabomber—as Kaczynski is 
called—sent bombs through the mail to

(40) people he considered enemies of the Earth. One of the Unabomber’s victims was Gilbert Murray, president of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry group. Kaczynski believed that Murray and the timber industry were contributing to the destruction of the environment. Another victim, Thomas Mosser, an advertising executive, was falsely accused by the 
Unabomber of helping Exxon clean up its

(50) public image after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. In Kaczynski’s manifesto, he advocates a revolution whose object “will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis for the present society.” Many analysts like Ralph R. Reiland argue that Kaczynski took the ideas of environmental groups such as Earth First! and pushed them to the extreme. Far 
left radicals like Kaczynski, he notes, take the

(60) ideas of other extremists and violently act on them. Reiland writes: “In short, the Unabomber was no intellectual loner.” 
Leftist radicals are by no means the only extremists who promote violence, however. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two right-wing extremists associated with the militia movement, were convicted of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City in April 1995, killing 168

(70) people in the process. McVeigh and Nichols—like others from the militia movement—mistrust government just as Kaczynski does, but for very different reasons. Militia members assert that the government conspires to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Those involved in the militia movement contend that it is necessary to maintain a body of armed 
citizens and a stockpile of weapons in order

(80) to defend the people against a tyrannical government. In addition, many within the movement believe that the government protects minorities at the expense of white males. According to John M. Swomley, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, militias “are anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and tend to accept fundamentalist white-supremacist and anti-Semitic theology as well 
as the subordination of women.”

(90) As the above examples illustrate, left and right wing extremists— while holding antithetical views—often arrive at similar solutions to perceived problems. Both Kaczynski and McVeigh mistrusted government, for instance, and both used bombs as a means of challenging the status quo. The straight line that illustrates the political spectrum, in fact, often turns into a 
circle with extremists from the right and left

(100) occupying the same position. While the Unabomber did not go so far as to call for the abolition of government, other extremists on the left do. Anarchists, for example, believe that government is oppressive and always undesirable. They advocate a state ruled by no political authority. In this regard they are in agreement with those from the militia movement. However, while the aim of 
anarchists is to turn over the means of

 (110) production to the workers in order to achieve an egalitarian society, many of those in the militia movement desire a return to the days when white men had more authority and control.
Some commentators argue that extremist views—but not extremist actions—such as those held by Kaczynski and McVeigh can benefit society by acting as a catalyst for 
change. For example, Marc E. Fisher, a

(120) political and religious analyst, contends that Jesus Christ was considered an extremist in his time. Fisher argues that Christ’s doctrines of brotherly love and forgiveness, however, “began a movement that would eventually change the lives of millions, indeed billions, of people” for the good. Many detractors also considered 1960s civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist. King turned that label around, asking those who would

(130) maintain racial segregation: “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” 
Neither Jesus nor King advocated violence. However, many would argue that extremist ideas—while perhaps stimulating— inevitably lead to violent and hateful actions. For example, while members of the environmental 
group Earth First! Do not publicly endorse

(140) violence; some commentators contend that individuals like Theodore Kaczynski nevertheless feel encouraged by the group’s ideas to commit violent acts. And while not everyone in the militia movement advocates the bombing of federal buildings, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols evidently felt that the ideas espoused by militia groups justified the bombing that killed scores of people. At 
their worst, extreme ideas can lead to the

(150) deaths of vast numbers of people, as witnessed by the millions killed in World War II as a result of the hatred spewed by Adolf Hitler.

What is the tone of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

At 12 : 01 a.m. on Jan. 1, ships laden with khaki slacks and cashmere sweaters will leave the port of Hong Kong. Their destination will be the Gap, Printemps, Wal-Mart and a slew of other retail stores, eventually ending up in closets from Paris to Peoria. These textile and apparel exports will be the first to head to America and Europe in a brand-new post-quota world, envisioned some 10 years ago when the World Trade Organization ordered that clothing import quotas be abolished by 2005. In theoretical terms, that means that China, Indonesia, Pakistan and other countries that produce textiles and apparel can ship as much as they want to the United States. If companies like the Limited and Banana Republic can buy specific clothing items from the cheapest and most efficient producer, no matter where that producer happens to reside, then American consumers - who have borne part of the cost of protecting the nation's textile industry - should see a sharp reduction in the price of clothing.

Which of the following can be said about the representation of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) Political ideologies can be visualized as points on a straight line, with liberals to the left of center and conservatives to the right. Located near the center of the line are political moderates. At the far points at either end are the extremists, both liberal and conservative. 
Liberals and conservatives differ primarily in their view of the proper role of government in 
the lives of citizens. While liberals tend to

(10) favor the federal government taking an active role in correcting social inequities, regulating business activities, and protecting the environment, conservatives tend to mistrust federal interference in these affairs. Conservatives believe that, to the extent that any regulation is necessary, these functions are best performed by state and local governments. Moreover, by definition, 
conservatives tend to be wary of change in

(20) society while liberals tend to favor change.
Both the liberal and conservative camps harbor extremists who favor revolutionary changes. Liberal extremists are often called radicals while conservative extremists are often referred to as reactionaries. Extremists push an agenda that makes the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, uncomfortable. Often, the actions of extremist 
groups push through social or legal barriers.

(30) Some extremists engage in unlawful activity—such as the destruction of private property— in order to further their agenda and garner media attention for their cause. Many resort to violence.
The liberal extremist Theodore Kaczynski killed three people and injured twenty-three during an eighteen-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. The Unabomber—as Kaczynski is 
called—sent bombs through the mail to

(40) people he considered enemies of the Earth. One of the Unabomber’s victims was Gilbert Murray, president of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry group. Kaczynski believed that Murray and the timber industry were contributing to the destruction of the environment. Another victim, Thomas Mosser, an advertising executive, was falsely accused by the 
Unabomber of helping Exxon clean up its

(50) public image after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. In Kaczynski’s manifesto, he advocates a revolution whose object “will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis for the present society.” Many analysts like Ralph R. Reiland argue that Kaczynski took the ideas of environmental groups such as Earth First! and pushed them to the extreme. Far 
left radicals like Kaczynski, he notes, take the

(60) ideas of other extremists and violently act on them. Reiland writes: “In short, the Unabomber was no intellectual loner.” 
Leftist radicals are by no means the only extremists who promote violence, however. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two right-wing extremists associated with the militia movement, were convicted of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City in April 1995, killing 168

(70) people in the process. McVeigh and Nichols—like others from the militia movement—mistrust government just as Kaczynski does, but for very different reasons. Militia members assert that the government conspires to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Those involved in the militia movement contend that it is necessary to maintain a body of armed 
citizens and a stockpile of weapons in order

(80) to defend the people against a tyrannical government. In addition, many within the movement believe that the government protects minorities at the expense of white males. According to John M. Swomley, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, militias “are anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and tend to accept fundamentalist white-supremacist and anti-Semitic theology as well 
as the subordination of women.”

(90) As the above examples illustrate, left and right wing extremists— while holding antithetical views—often arrive at similar solutions to perceived problems. Both Kaczynski and McVeigh mistrusted government, for instance, and both used bombs as a means of challenging the status quo. The straight line that illustrates the political spectrum, in fact, often turns into a 
circle with extremists from the right and left

(100) occupying the same position. While the Unabomber did not go so far as to call for the abolition of government, other extremists on the left do. Anarchists, for example, believe that government is oppressive and always undesirable. They advocate a state ruled by no political authority. In this regard they are in agreement with those from the militia movement. However, while the aim of 
anarchists is to turn over the means of

 (110) production to the workers in order to achieve an egalitarian society, many of those in the militia movement desire a return to the days when white men had more authority and control.
Some commentators argue that extremist views—but not extremist actions—such as those held by Kaczynski and McVeigh can benefit society by acting as a catalyst for 
change. For example, Marc E. Fisher, a

(120) political and religious analyst, contends that Jesus Christ was considered an extremist in his time. Fisher argues that Christ’s doctrines of brotherly love and forgiveness, however, “began a movement that would eventually change the lives of millions, indeed billions, of people” for the good. Many detractors also considered 1960s civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist. King turned that label around, asking those who would

(130) maintain racial segregation: “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” 
Neither Jesus nor King advocated violence. However, many would argue that extremist ideas—while perhaps stimulating— inevitably lead to violent and hateful actions. For example, while members of the environmental 
group Earth First! Do not publicly endorse

(140) violence; some commentators contend that individuals like Theodore Kaczynski nevertheless feel encouraged by the group’s ideas to commit violent acts. And while not everyone in the militia movement advocates the bombing of federal buildings, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols evidently felt that the ideas espoused by militia groups justified the bombing that killed scores of people. At 
their worst, extreme ideas can lead to the

(150) deaths of vast numbers of people, as witnessed by the millions killed in World War II as a result of the hatred spewed by Adolf Hitler.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) “Truth-seeking is an imperfect process. . . . If mistakes are to be made, they should be made in the direction of making sure that an innocent person is not convicted.” —Jay M. Feinman, Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About the American Legal System
One of the keystone responsibilities of the American legal system is to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial.

(10) However, the perfection of DNA tests have recently proven that on numerous occasions people were arrested and convicted of crimes they did not commit. The results of these tests point out that the legal system is imperfect.
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the genetic code that determines an individual’s physical characteristics. It can be found in the nucleus of every cell. Because everyone has a unique DNA code (except identical multiple births),

(20) forensic testing on hair, semen, or blood left at a crime scene may determine whether a defendant committed the crimes for which he or she has been accused. 
Law professor Barry Scheck has advocated using DNA in ambiguous cases in a nationwide effort he calls the Innocence Project, which provides free legal assistance for inmates who have proven that DNA testing may make a difference in the outcome of a

(30) retrial. The project has helped exonerate more than thirty-five prisoners. In an interview with the television program Frontline, Scheck stated, “This is total system failure. We’re not talking about some procedural due process matter; some matter of unfairness in the way the trial was conducted. We’re talking about people who are actually innocent. And that has to command our respect and attention and concern unlike any other kind of case.”

(40)DNA testing has, in effect, called into question more traditional evidence in determining guilt such as eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony leads to an average of seventy-seven thousand arrests every year. Studies have found that faulty eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of false convictions. A 1997 report by the Constitutional Rights Foundation states, “Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions

(50)and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes.” According to Boston defense attorney James Doyle, thirty-six of the first forty prisoners who were released after DNA testing had been convicted because of eyewitness testimony.
Several ways that eyewitnesses have been asked to identify suspects may compound the inaccuracy of their testimony. Criminal lineups, for example, seem to result in the

(60) witness selecting the person who most closely resembles the person he or she saw, regardless of whether the actual perpetrator is in the lineup. Other factors include the amount of time that passed between the
crime and the identification, as well as police and prosecutors influencing the eyewitness. Race also affects an eyewitness’s ability to successfully identify a suspect. Studies have found that people are 15 percent more likely

 (70) to accurately identify suspects of their own race. 
The behavior of police can also affect a person’s ability to receive a fair trial. Despite the presence of Miranda laws— which have 
largely eliminated physical and psychological torture of suspects—many critics of the police contend that defendants are compelled into confessing to crimes they did not commit. For example, Earl Washington was convicted of

(80) murder in 1984 and sentenced to death; he was later exonerated by DNA testing. Washington’s lawyers argued during his murder trial that his IQ of 69 had made it easier for police to lead him into a false confession. In an article for American Prospect, Alexander Nguyen writes, “[The] tactics police departments have developed are so effective that police have even been able to extract false confessions from

(90) innocent suspects—a baffling phenomenon, but evidence that interrogations have continued to be psychologically compelling.” These tactics can include lying to a suspect about an accomplice’s confession or the existence of witnesses and evidence. 
The problem of wrongful convictions is one of the many issues facing the American legal system.

The word 'strengths' in line 71 implies ______________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) The United States has consistently led the world in the number of marriages each year, with a marriage rate roughly twice as high as those in other industrialized countries. It has also consistently led the world in the divorce rate. During the 1960s, the divorce rate in the United States began to climb rapidly. In 1960, there were nine divorces for every thousand married women; by 1970, the number had

(10) shot up to fifteen per thousand. Divorces peaked in 1980 at twenty-three per thousand and have since leveled off at twenty-one per thousand married women in the early 1990s.
Concerned about the country’s high divorce rate, clergy, academics, sociologists, politicians, and others have called for measures to slow it down. One proposal is to return to fault-based divorce, which was the law of the land prior to 1969. Divorce then

(20) was granted only in specific circumstances, generally limited to infidelity, physical or mental cruelty, or desertion. Couples who wished to divorce had to prove in court that one spouse was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Only the innocent party was allowed to sue for divorce, thus ensuring that all divorces granted were approved by both spouses. If one spouse did not want a divorce and was not guilty of any

(30) transgression, a divorce would not be granted. If both partners were found guilty of fault, they were deemed to deserve each other and no divorce was granted.
California’s no-fault divorce statute, signed into law in 1969 by then governor Ronald Reagan, started a cultural revolution that saw forty-four states adopting no-fault divorce within the next five years, and all fifty states adopting it by 1984. With the advent of no-

(40) fault divorce, married couples did not have to prove who was responsible for the broken marriage. A divorce could be granted based solely on incompatibility or the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Opponents of no-fault divorce contend that the relaxed rules concerning divorce are behind the nation’s high divorce rate. When a divorce is easy to obtain, they claim, it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to try to

(50) repair it. No-fault divorce foes cite a 1995 study in the Journal of Marriage and the Family that found that the divorce rate increased between 15 and 25 percent in the three years following the adoption of no-fault divorce laws. 
No-fault divorce also allows one spouse to dissolve a marriage at any time for any reason—or for no reason at all—regardless of the wishes of the other spouse, opponents

(60) assert. The ability to make such a unilateral decision abrogates the marriage contract, contends Lenore Weitzman, author of The Divorce Revolution. She maintains that no-fault divorce transforms marriage into a “time-limited contingent arrangement rather than a lifelong commitment.” No-fault divorce laws also give all the power to the spouse who wants to get divorced, she asserts, thus “elevating one’s ‘right’ to a divorce over a

 (70) spouse’s ‘right’ to remain married.” What society must do, Weitzman concludes, is return to the strengths of fault-based divorce, in which the law protects the spouse who remains true to the marriage contract rather than blessing the one who wants to break it. 
Supporters of no-fault divorce argue that changing the law will not necessarily lower the number of divorces. As Hanna Rosin writes in the May 6, 1996, issue of the New

(80) Republic, “Correlation does not prove causation.” She maintains that the American divorce rate has been rising since the 1800s and almost doubled between 1960 and 1970, years before most states had adopted no-fault divorce laws. “The sudden spike in the three years following the reform came from a backlog of cases,” Rosin claims, and was merely a response to changes in America’s culture brought on by the sexual revolution.

(90) Returning to fault-based divorce would not result in a lower divorce rate or make marriages last longer, she contends. 
In addition, a return to fault-based divorce would hurt the families it is trying to protect, no-fault supporters argue. According to Constance Ahrons, author of The Good Divorce and director of the marriage and family-therapy program at the University of Southern California, “When one spouse must

(100) prove the other to be ‘at fault,’ divorce becomes a pitched battle between adversaries who each must prove the other committed adultery, spousal abuse or child abuse or destroyed the home. . . . Anger escalates and continues for years or decades following the divorce.” Furthermore, she contends, litigation in fault-based divorces harms the children who are forced to watch their parents battle in a long, vicious war. No-

(110) fault divorce reduces the acrimony, she maintains, and provides a “civilized arena in which marriage can be terminated while parents continue to be parents.” 
The impact that changing divorce laws would have on the divorce rate is debatable. Both sides of the no-fault divorce issue recognize the importance of marriage and family; however, each believes its approach to divorce is the best way to preserve the family

(120) and protect both the parents and the children.

The best title for the passage can be __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) “Truth-seeking is an imperfect process. . . . If mistakes are to be made, they should be made in the direction of making sure that an innocent person is not convicted.” —Jay M. Feinman, Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About the American Legal System
One of the keystone responsibilities of the American legal system is to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial.

(10) However, the perfection of DNA tests have recently proven that on numerous occasions people were arrested and convicted of crimes they did not commit. The results of these tests point out that the legal system is imperfect.
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the genetic code that determines an individual’s physical characteristics. It can be found in the nucleus of every cell. Because everyone has a unique DNA code (except identical multiple births),

(20) forensic testing on hair, semen, or blood left at a crime scene may determine whether a defendant committed the crimes for which he or she has been accused. 
Law professor Barry Scheck has advocated using DNA in ambiguous cases in a nationwide effort he calls the Innocence Project, which provides free legal assistance for inmates who have proven that DNA testing may make a difference in the outcome of a

(30) retrial. The project has helped exonerate more than thirty-five prisoners. In an interview with the television program Frontline, Scheck stated, “This is total system failure. We’re not talking about some procedural due process matter; some matter of unfairness in the way the trial was conducted. We’re talking about people who are actually innocent. And that has to command our respect and attention and concern unlike any other kind of case.”

(40)DNA testing has, in effect, called into question more traditional evidence in determining guilt such as eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony leads to an average of seventy-seven thousand arrests every year. Studies have found that faulty eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of false convictions. A 1997 report by the Constitutional Rights Foundation states, “Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions

(50)and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes.” According to Boston defense attorney James Doyle, thirty-six of the first forty prisoners who were released after DNA testing had been convicted because of eyewitness testimony.
Several ways that eyewitnesses have been asked to identify suspects may compound the inaccuracy of their testimony. Criminal lineups, for example, seem to result in the

(60) witness selecting the person who most closely resembles the person he or she saw, regardless of whether the actual perpetrator is in the lineup. Other factors include the amount of time that passed between the
crime and the identification, as well as police and prosecutors influencing the eyewitness. Race also affects an eyewitness’s ability to successfully identify a suspect. Studies have found that people are 15 percent more likely

 (70) to accurately identify suspects of their own race. 
The behavior of police can also affect a person’s ability to receive a fair trial. Despite the presence of Miranda laws— which have 
largely eliminated physical and psychological torture of suspects—many critics of the police contend that defendants are compelled into confessing to crimes they did not commit. For example, Earl Washington was convicted of

(80) murder in 1984 and sentenced to death; he was later exonerated by DNA testing. Washington’s lawyers argued during his murder trial that his IQ of 69 had made it easier for police to lead him into a false confession. In an article for American Prospect, Alexander Nguyen writes, “[The] tactics police departments have developed are so effective that police have even been able to extract false confessions from

(90) innocent suspects—a baffling phenomenon, but evidence that interrogations have continued to be psychologically compelling.” These tactics can include lying to a suspect about an accomplice’s confession or the existence of witnesses and evidence. 
The problem of wrongful convictions is one of the many issues facing the American legal system.

Main purpose of the passage is _____________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) The United States has consistently led the world in the number of marriages each year, with a marriage rate roughly twice as high as those in other industrialized countries. It has also consistently led the world in the divorce rate. During the 1960s, the divorce rate in the United States began to climb rapidly. In 1960, there were nine divorces for every thousand married women; by 1970, the number had

(10) shot up to fifteen per thousand. Divorces peaked in 1980 at twenty-three per thousand and have since leveled off at twenty-one per thousand married women in the early 1990s.
Concerned about the country’s high divorce rate, clergy, academics, sociologists, politicians, and others have called for measures to slow it down. One proposal is to return to fault-based divorce, which was the law of the land prior to 1969. Divorce then

(20) was granted only in specific circumstances, generally limited to infidelity, physical or mental cruelty, or desertion. Couples who wished to divorce had to prove in court that one spouse was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Only the innocent party was allowed to sue for divorce, thus ensuring that all divorces granted were approved by both spouses. If one spouse did not want a divorce and was not guilty of any

(30) transgression, a divorce would not be granted. If both partners were found guilty of fault, they were deemed to deserve each other and no divorce was granted.
California’s no-fault divorce statute, signed into law in 1969 by then governor Ronald Reagan, started a cultural revolution that saw forty-four states adopting no-fault divorce within the next five years, and all fifty states adopting it by 1984. With the advent of no-

(40) fault divorce, married couples did not have to prove who was responsible for the broken marriage. A divorce could be granted based solely on incompatibility or the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Opponents of no-fault divorce contend that the relaxed rules concerning divorce are behind the nation’s high divorce rate. When a divorce is easy to obtain, they claim, it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to try to

(50) repair it. No-fault divorce foes cite a 1995 study in the Journal of Marriage and the Family that found that the divorce rate increased between 15 and 25 percent in the three years following the adoption of no-fault divorce laws. 
No-fault divorce also allows one spouse to dissolve a marriage at any time for any reason—or for no reason at all—regardless of the wishes of the other spouse, opponents

(60) assert. The ability to make such a unilateral decision abrogates the marriage contract, contends Lenore Weitzman, author of The Divorce Revolution. She maintains that no-fault divorce transforms marriage into a “time-limited contingent arrangement rather than a lifelong commitment.” No-fault divorce laws also give all the power to the spouse who wants to get divorced, she asserts, thus “elevating one’s ‘right’ to a divorce over a

 (70) spouse’s ‘right’ to remain married.” What society must do, Weitzman concludes, is return to the strengths of fault-based divorce, in which the law protects the spouse who remains true to the marriage contract rather than blessing the one who wants to break it. 
Supporters of no-fault divorce argue that changing the law will not necessarily lower the number of divorces. As Hanna Rosin writes in the May 6, 1996, issue of the New

(80) Republic, “Correlation does not prove causation.” She maintains that the American divorce rate has been rising since the 1800s and almost doubled between 1960 and 1970, years before most states had adopted no-fault divorce laws. “The sudden spike in the three years following the reform came from a backlog of cases,” Rosin claims, and was merely a response to changes in America’s culture brought on by the sexual revolution.

(90) Returning to fault-based divorce would not result in a lower divorce rate or make marriages last longer, she contends. 
In addition, a return to fault-based divorce would hurt the families it is trying to protect, no-fault supporters argue. According to Constance Ahrons, author of The Good Divorce and director of the marriage and family-therapy program at the University of Southern California, “When one spouse must

(100) prove the other to be ‘at fault,’ divorce becomes a pitched battle between adversaries who each must prove the other committed adultery, spousal abuse or child abuse or destroyed the home. . . . Anger escalates and continues for years or decades following the divorce.” Furthermore, she contends, litigation in fault-based divorces harms the children who are forced to watch their parents battle in a long, vicious war. No-

(110) fault divorce reduces the acrimony, she maintains, and provides a “civilized arena in which marriage can be terminated while parents continue to be parents.” 
The impact that changing divorce laws would have on the divorce rate is debatable. Both sides of the no-fault divorce issue recognize the importance of marriage and family; however, each believes its approach to divorce is the best way to preserve the family

(120) and protect both the parents and the children.

According to the passage, which of the following is not the role of DNA?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) “Truth-seeking is an imperfect process. . . . If mistakes are to be made, they should be made in the direction of making sure that an innocent person is not convicted.” —Jay M. Feinman, Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About the American Legal System
One of the keystone responsibilities of the American legal system is to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial.

(10) However, the perfection of DNA tests have recently proven that on numerous occasions people were arrested and convicted of crimes they did not commit. The results of these tests point out that the legal system is imperfect.
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the genetic code that determines an individual’s physical characteristics. It can be found in the nucleus of every cell. Because everyone has a unique DNA code (except identical multiple births),

(20) forensic testing on hair, semen, or blood left at a crime scene may determine whether a defendant committed the crimes for which he or she has been accused. 
Law professor Barry Scheck has advocated using DNA in ambiguous cases in a nationwide effort he calls the Innocence Project, which provides free legal assistance for inmates who have proven that DNA testing may make a difference in the outcome of a

(30) retrial. The project has helped exonerate more than thirty-five prisoners. In an interview with the television program Frontline, Scheck stated, “This is total system failure. We’re not talking about some procedural due process matter; some matter of unfairness in the way the trial was conducted. We’re talking about people who are actually innocent. And that has to command our respect and attention and concern unlike any other kind of case.”

(40)DNA testing has, in effect, called into question more traditional evidence in determining guilt such as eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony leads to an average of seventy-seven thousand arrests every year. Studies have found that faulty eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of false convictions. A 1997 report by the Constitutional Rights Foundation states, “Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions

(50)and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes.” According to Boston defense attorney James Doyle, thirty-six of the first forty prisoners who were released after DNA testing had been convicted because of eyewitness testimony.
Several ways that eyewitnesses have been asked to identify suspects may compound the inaccuracy of their testimony. Criminal lineups, for example, seem to result in the

(60) witness selecting the person who most closely resembles the person he or she saw, regardless of whether the actual perpetrator is in the lineup. Other factors include the amount of time that passed between the
crime and the identification, as well as police and prosecutors influencing the eyewitness. Race also affects an eyewitness’s ability to successfully identify a suspect. Studies have found that people are 15 percent more likely

 (70) to accurately identify suspects of their own race. 
The behavior of police can also affect a person’s ability to receive a fair trial. Despite the presence of Miranda laws— which have 
largely eliminated physical and psychological torture of suspects—many critics of the police contend that defendants are compelled into confessing to crimes they did not commit. For example, Earl Washington was convicted of

(80) murder in 1984 and sentenced to death; he was later exonerated by DNA testing. Washington’s lawyers argued during his murder trial that his IQ of 69 had made it easier for police to lead him into a false confession. In an article for American Prospect, Alexander Nguyen writes, “[The] tactics police departments have developed are so effective that police have even been able to extract false confessions from

(90) innocent suspects—a baffling phenomenon, but evidence that interrogations have continued to be psychologically compelling.” These tactics can include lying to a suspect about an accomplice’s confession or the existence of witnesses and evidence. 
The problem of wrongful convictions is one of the many issues facing the American legal system.

What is the organisation of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In 1991, the U.S. economy pulled out of a yearlong recession and entered a period of sustained economic growth that was to become the longest boom in the nation’s history by the start of the twenty-first century. Fueled by the technology revolution, the development of the Internet, and globalization, a flurry of entrepreneurial activity led to the rise of new businesses (albeit some short-lived) and the rapid expansion of existing ones. The economy favored the American worker with national unemployment rates at around 4 percent toward the end of the 1990s, their lowest since the late 1960s, drawing former welfare recipients, minorities, and the long-term unemployed into the workforce in unprecedented numbers. Demand for highly skilled workers also surged as the computer age gathered force, creating a new class of “overnight” millionaires. Though many Americans have clearly benefited from this expansion, commentators are alarmed by what they contend is the widening gap between high-wage earners and the rest of the workforce. According to former secretary of labor Robert Reich, “[In 2000,] the richest 2.7 million (10) Americans, comprising the top 1 percent, . . . [had] as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million put together, and . . . [they had] 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.” Unquestionably, the “new economy” has increased earnings for highly skilled workers—law firms, investment banks, and computer companies have spared no expense in attracting and holding on to employees in a tight labor market, where entry-level salaries have reached upwards of $120,000.

While the wages of skilled workers have increased, however, the wages of low-income workers have actually fallen over the past 30 years. The federal minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, was worth nearly two dollars less in 1999 than in 1968, according to a study on low-wage earners by Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt of the Economic Policy Institute. Explain Bernstein and Schmitt, “Back in 1968, full-time work at the minimum wage put a . . . [one-parent family with two children] about $1300 (in 1999 dollars) above the poverty line… [In 1999,] that same family (20) would be $2700 below the line.” As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.4 million out of the 130 million workers nationwide earned the minimum wage in 1999. Over 20 million Americans are considered low-wage workers, earning under $7.15 an hour, and many of them are parents supporting families.

In response to the stagnating wages of low-wage workers and the widening income gap between rich and poor Americans, unions, community groups, and religious organizations have begun promoting the idea of a “living wage,” defined as the wage necessary for one earner to support a family of four above the poverty line of $17,000 a year. This wage works out to about $8.20 an hour for a forty-hour workweek. The living wage idea is based on the belief that in a society that discourages dependency and where work is highly regarded, no one should work full-time and still struggle to keep a family out of poverty. In 1994, Baltimore was one of the first cities to enact a living-wage ordinance, establishing a government-mandated hourly wage of $7.70 for contractors and subcontractors doing (30) business with the city. Since that time, numerous cities around the country have passed living wage ordinances, with hourly wages ranging from around $8 to $11. Advocates are also pushing for federal living wage legislation to replace the minimum wage on a national scale. 

Living-wage proponents argue that the insufficient federal minimum wage is in part responsible for the large number of working poor in the United States. David Moberg, a senior fellow of the Nation Institute, a liberal research organization, argues that in paying low wages, businesses are in fact being subsidized by taxpayers, who must make up the difference in workers’ low pay and lack of health insurance with medical care, food stamps, and tax credits. Contends Moberg, “Why should businesses be allowed to slough off these costs onto taxpayers? And if taxpayers are ultimately paying the wages of contract employees anyway, why not simply pay the employees a living wage directly?” Contrary to conventional economists who believe that raising the minimum wage reduces employment and (40) hurts the poor, Moberg asserts “employers compensate for higher wages by managing better, . . . saving on turnover and recruitment expenses, and gaining productivity from a more motivated work force.” 

Opponents contend that living wage laws are not the right approach to correct the income gap between high-wage and low-wage workers. According to a report on the American workforce by the Hudson Institute, a conservative policy research organization, education is the key to better wages; the earnings of college-educated workers are substantially higher than those with only a high school diploma. In addition, fears that economic inequality is rising are based on “‘static’ snapshots of income distribution at a particular moment in time,” according to the report. It is more realistic, in the opinion of the authors, to examine whether low wage earners are increasing their earnings over time. Concludes the Hudson Institute, “Data from . . . [a] U.S. Treasury Department . . . study [finds that] 86 percent of those in the lowest income bracket in 1979 moved up to a higher bracket within nine years. Two-(50) thirds of these Americans moved into the top three quintiles, and 15 percent of them moved all the way up into the top quintile of earners.” 

Critics further argue that under the artificially high wages proposed by living wage advocates, low-skilled workers will have a harder time finding work in the first place, let alone moving up the income ladder, as businesses shed workers they can no longer afford to keep on the payroll. W. Michael Cox, a senior vice president and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter at the Dallas Morning News, assert, “If government dictum replaces market reality, jobs will be lost or never created… What’s worse, local governments’ intervention in the free market sends an anti-business signal: Don’t come here. Go elsewhere. And companies will do that, taking their jobs and tax payments with them.” As the living wage movement expands to more cities, and threatens to move onto state and national levels, Cox and Alm foresee drastic consequences for America’s economy, (60) with slower business growth and higher rates of unemployment.

Which of the following is not among the reasons given for a high divorce rate in the US?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) The United States has consistently led the world in the number of marriages each year, with a marriage rate roughly twice as high as those in other industrialized countries. It has also consistently led the world in the divorce rate. During the 1960s, the divorce rate in the United States began to climb rapidly. In 1960, there were nine divorces for every thousand married women; by 1970, the number had

(10) shot up to fifteen per thousand. Divorces peaked in 1980 at twenty-three per thousand and have since leveled off at twenty-one per thousand married women in the early 1990s.
Concerned about the country’s high divorce rate, clergy, academics, sociologists, politicians, and others have called for measures to slow it down. One proposal is to return to fault-based divorce, which was the law of the land prior to 1969. Divorce then

(20) was granted only in specific circumstances, generally limited to infidelity, physical or mental cruelty, or desertion. Couples who wished to divorce had to prove in court that one spouse was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Only the innocent party was allowed to sue for divorce, thus ensuring that all divorces granted were approved by both spouses. If one spouse did not want a divorce and was not guilty of any

(30) transgression, a divorce would not be granted. If both partners were found guilty of fault, they were deemed to deserve each other and no divorce was granted.
California’s no-fault divorce statute, signed into law in 1969 by then governor Ronald Reagan, started a cultural revolution that saw forty-four states adopting no-fault divorce within the next five years, and all fifty states adopting it by 1984. With the advent of no-

(40) fault divorce, married couples did not have to prove who was responsible for the broken marriage. A divorce could be granted based solely on incompatibility or the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Opponents of no-fault divorce contend that the relaxed rules concerning divorce are behind the nation’s high divorce rate. When a divorce is easy to obtain, they claim, it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to try to

(50) repair it. No-fault divorce foes cite a 1995 study in the Journal of Marriage and the Family that found that the divorce rate increased between 15 and 25 percent in the three years following the adoption of no-fault divorce laws. 
No-fault divorce also allows one spouse to dissolve a marriage at any time for any reason—or for no reason at all—regardless of the wishes of the other spouse, opponents

(60) assert. The ability to make such a unilateral decision abrogates the marriage contract, contends Lenore Weitzman, author of The Divorce Revolution. She maintains that no-fault divorce transforms marriage into a “time-limited contingent arrangement rather than a lifelong commitment.” No-fault divorce laws also give all the power to the spouse who wants to get divorced, she asserts, thus “elevating one’s ‘right’ to a divorce over a

 (70) spouse’s ‘right’ to remain married.” What society must do, Weitzman concludes, is return to the strengths of fault-based divorce, in which the law protects the spouse who remains true to the marriage contract rather than blessing the one who wants to break it. 
Supporters of no-fault divorce argue that changing the law will not necessarily lower the number of divorces. As Hanna Rosin writes in the May 6, 1996, issue of the New

(80) Republic, “Correlation does not prove causation.” She maintains that the American divorce rate has been rising since the 1800s and almost doubled between 1960 and 1970, years before most states had adopted no-fault divorce laws. “The sudden spike in the three years following the reform came from a backlog of cases,” Rosin claims, and was merely a response to changes in America’s culture brought on by the sexual revolution.

(90) Returning to fault-based divorce would not result in a lower divorce rate or make marriages last longer, she contends. 
In addition, a return to fault-based divorce would hurt the families it is trying to protect, no-fault supporters argue. According to Constance Ahrons, author of The Good Divorce and director of the marriage and family-therapy program at the University of Southern California, “When one spouse must

(100) prove the other to be ‘at fault,’ divorce becomes a pitched battle between adversaries who each must prove the other committed adultery, spousal abuse or child abuse or destroyed the home. . . . Anger escalates and continues for years or decades following the divorce.” Furthermore, she contends, litigation in fault-based divorces harms the children who are forced to watch their parents battle in a long, vicious war. No-

(110) fault divorce reduces the acrimony, she maintains, and provides a “civilized arena in which marriage can be terminated while parents continue to be parents.” 
The impact that changing divorce laws would have on the divorce rate is debatable. Both sides of the no-fault divorce issue recognize the importance of marriage and family; however, each believes its approach to divorce is the best way to preserve the family

(120) and protect both the parents and the children.

Which of the following can be extracted from the passage about liberals? I. Liberals who were extremists were very sporadic in nature. II. Liberal extremists in their own way, aid the society. III. Liberals refute the radical's notion on jurisdiction.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) Political ideologies can be visualized as points on a straight line, with liberals to the left of center and conservatives to the right. Located near the center of the line are political moderates. At the far points at either end are the extremists, both liberal and conservative. 
Liberals and conservatives differ primarily in their view of the proper role of government in 
the lives of citizens. While liberals tend to

(10) favor the federal government taking an active role in correcting social inequities, regulating business activities, and protecting the environment, conservatives tend to mistrust federal interference in these affairs. Conservatives believe that, to the extent that any regulation is necessary, these functions are best performed by state and local governments. Moreover, by definition, 
conservatives tend to be wary of change in

(20) society while liberals tend to favor change.
Both the liberal and conservative camps harbor extremists who favor revolutionary changes. Liberal extremists are often called radicals while conservative extremists are often referred to as reactionaries. Extremists push an agenda that makes the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, uncomfortable. Often, the actions of extremist 
groups push through social or legal barriers.

(30) Some extremists engage in unlawful activity—such as the destruction of private property— in order to further their agenda and garner media attention for their cause. Many resort to violence.
The liberal extremist Theodore Kaczynski killed three people and injured twenty-three during an eighteen-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. The Unabomber—as Kaczynski is 
called—sent bombs through the mail to

(40) people he considered enemies of the Earth. One of the Unabomber’s victims was Gilbert Murray, president of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry group. Kaczynski believed that Murray and the timber industry were contributing to the destruction of the environment. Another victim, Thomas Mosser, an advertising executive, was falsely accused by the 
Unabomber of helping Exxon clean up its

(50) public image after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. In Kaczynski’s manifesto, he advocates a revolution whose object “will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis for the present society.” Many analysts like Ralph R. Reiland argue that Kaczynski took the ideas of environmental groups such as Earth First! and pushed them to the extreme. Far 
left radicals like Kaczynski, he notes, take the

(60) ideas of other extremists and violently act on them. Reiland writes: “In short, the Unabomber was no intellectual loner.” 
Leftist radicals are by no means the only extremists who promote violence, however. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two right-wing extremists associated with the militia movement, were convicted of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City in April 1995, killing 168

(70) people in the process. McVeigh and Nichols—like others from the militia movement—mistrust government just as Kaczynski does, but for very different reasons. Militia members assert that the government conspires to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Those involved in the militia movement contend that it is necessary to maintain a body of armed 
citizens and a stockpile of weapons in order

(80) to defend the people against a tyrannical government. In addition, many within the movement believe that the government protects minorities at the expense of white males. According to John M. Swomley, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, militias “are anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and tend to accept fundamentalist white-supremacist and anti-Semitic theology as well 
as the subordination of women.”

(90) As the above examples illustrate, left and right wing extremists— while holding antithetical views—often arrive at similar solutions to perceived problems. Both Kaczynski and McVeigh mistrusted government, for instance, and both used bombs as a means of challenging the status quo. The straight line that illustrates the political spectrum, in fact, often turns into a 
circle with extremists from the right and left

(100) occupying the same position. While the Unabomber did not go so far as to call for the abolition of government, other extremists on the left do. Anarchists, for example, believe that government is oppressive and always undesirable. They advocate a state ruled by no political authority. In this regard they are in agreement with those from the militia movement. However, while the aim of 
anarchists is to turn over the means of

 (110) production to the workers in order to achieve an egalitarian society, many of those in the militia movement desire a return to the days when white men had more authority and control.
Some commentators argue that extremist views—but not extremist actions—such as those held by Kaczynski and McVeigh can benefit society by acting as a catalyst for 
change. For example, Marc E. Fisher, a

(120) political and religious analyst, contends that Jesus Christ was considered an extremist in his time. Fisher argues that Christ’s doctrines of brotherly love and forgiveness, however, “began a movement that would eventually change the lives of millions, indeed billions, of people” for the good. Many detractors also considered 1960s civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist. King turned that label around, asking those who would

(130) maintain racial segregation: “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” 
Neither Jesus nor King advocated violence. However, many would argue that extremist ideas—while perhaps stimulating— inevitably lead to violent and hateful actions. For example, while members of the environmental 
group Earth First! Do not publicly endorse

(140) violence; some commentators contend that individuals like Theodore Kaczynski nevertheless feel encouraged by the group’s ideas to commit violent acts. And while not everyone in the militia movement advocates the bombing of federal buildings, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols evidently felt that the ideas espoused by militia groups justified the bombing that killed scores of people. At 
their worst, extreme ideas can lead to the

(150) deaths of vast numbers of people, as witnessed by the millions killed in World War II as a result of the hatred spewed by Adolf Hitler.

'Antithetical' in line 92 implies ___________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) Political ideologies can be visualized as points on a straight line, with liberals to the left of center and conservatives to the right. Located near the center of the line are political moderates. At the far points at either end are the extremists, both liberal and conservative. 
Liberals and conservatives differ primarily in their view of the proper role of government in 
the lives of citizens. While liberals tend to

(10) favor the federal government taking an active role in correcting social inequities, regulating business activities, and protecting the environment, conservatives tend to mistrust federal interference in these affairs. Conservatives believe that, to the extent that any regulation is necessary, these functions are best performed by state and local governments. Moreover, by definition, 
conservatives tend to be wary of change in

(20) society while liberals tend to favor change.
Both the liberal and conservative camps harbor extremists who favor revolutionary changes. Liberal extremists are often called radicals while conservative extremists are often referred to as reactionaries. Extremists push an agenda that makes the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, uncomfortable. Often, the actions of extremist 
groups push through social or legal barriers.

(30) Some extremists engage in unlawful activity—such as the destruction of private property— in order to further their agenda and garner media attention for their cause. Many resort to violence.
The liberal extremist Theodore Kaczynski killed three people and injured twenty-three during an eighteen-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. The Unabomber—as Kaczynski is 
called—sent bombs through the mail to

(40) people he considered enemies of the Earth. One of the Unabomber’s victims was Gilbert Murray, president of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry group. Kaczynski believed that Murray and the timber industry were contributing to the destruction of the environment. Another victim, Thomas Mosser, an advertising executive, was falsely accused by the 
Unabomber of helping Exxon clean up its

(50) public image after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. In Kaczynski’s manifesto, he advocates a revolution whose object “will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis for the present society.” Many analysts like Ralph R. Reiland argue that Kaczynski took the ideas of environmental groups such as Earth First! and pushed them to the extreme. Far 
left radicals like Kaczynski, he notes, take the

(60) ideas of other extremists and violently act on them. Reiland writes: “In short, the Unabomber was no intellectual loner.” 
Leftist radicals are by no means the only extremists who promote violence, however. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two right-wing extremists associated with the militia movement, were convicted of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City in April 1995, killing 168

(70) people in the process. McVeigh and Nichols—like others from the militia movement—mistrust government just as Kaczynski does, but for very different reasons. Militia members assert that the government conspires to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Those involved in the militia movement contend that it is necessary to maintain a body of armed 
citizens and a stockpile of weapons in order

(80) to defend the people against a tyrannical government. In addition, many within the movement believe that the government protects minorities at the expense of white males. According to John M. Swomley, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, militias “are anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and tend to accept fundamentalist white-supremacist and anti-Semitic theology as well 
as the subordination of women.”

(90) As the above examples illustrate, left and right wing extremists— while holding antithetical views—often arrive at similar solutions to perceived problems. Both Kaczynski and McVeigh mistrusted government, for instance, and both used bombs as a means of challenging the status quo. The straight line that illustrates the political spectrum, in fact, often turns into a 
circle with extremists from the right and left

(100) occupying the same position. While the Unabomber did not go so far as to call for the abolition of government, other extremists on the left do. Anarchists, for example, believe that government is oppressive and always undesirable. They advocate a state ruled by no political authority. In this regard they are in agreement with those from the militia movement. However, while the aim of 
anarchists is to turn over the means of

 (110) production to the workers in order to achieve an egalitarian society, many of those in the militia movement desire a return to the days when white men had more authority and control.
Some commentators argue that extremist views—but not extremist actions—such as those held by Kaczynski and McVeigh can benefit society by acting as a catalyst for 
change. For example, Marc E. Fisher, a

(120) political and religious analyst, contends that Jesus Christ was considered an extremist in his time. Fisher argues that Christ’s doctrines of brotherly love and forgiveness, however, “began a movement that would eventually change the lives of millions, indeed billions, of people” for the good. Many detractors also considered 1960s civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist. King turned that label around, asking those who would

(130) maintain racial segregation: “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” 
Neither Jesus nor King advocated violence. However, many would argue that extremist ideas—while perhaps stimulating— inevitably lead to violent and hateful actions. For example, while members of the environmental 
group Earth First! Do not publicly endorse

(140) violence; some commentators contend that individuals like Theodore Kaczynski nevertheless feel encouraged by the group’s ideas to commit violent acts. And while not everyone in the militia movement advocates the bombing of federal buildings, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols evidently felt that the ideas espoused by militia groups justified the bombing that killed scores of people. At 
their worst, extreme ideas can lead to the

(150) deaths of vast numbers of people, as witnessed by the millions killed in World War II as a result of the hatred spewed by Adolf Hitler.

Which of the following traits are not attributed to the government by the radicals?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

(1) Political ideologies can be visualized as points on a straight line, with liberals to the left of center and conservatives to the right. Located near the center of the line are political moderates. At the far points at either end are the extremists, both liberal and conservative. 
Liberals and conservatives differ primarily in their view of the proper role of government in 
the lives of citizens. While liberals tend to

(10) favor the federal government taking an active role in correcting social inequities, regulating business activities, and protecting the environment, conservatives tend to mistrust federal interference in these affairs. Conservatives believe that, to the extent that any regulation is necessary, these functions are best performed by state and local governments. Moreover, by definition, 
conservatives tend to be wary of change in

(20) society while liberals tend to favor change.
Both the liberal and conservative camps harbor extremists who favor revolutionary changes. Liberal extremists are often called radicals while conservative extremists are often referred to as reactionaries. Extremists push an agenda that makes the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, uncomfortable. Often, the actions of extremist 
groups push through social or legal barriers.

(30) Some extremists engage in unlawful activity—such as the destruction of private property— in order to further their agenda and garner media attention for their cause. Many resort to violence.
The liberal extremist Theodore Kaczynski killed three people and injured twenty-three during an eighteen-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. The Unabomber—as Kaczynski is 
called—sent bombs through the mail to

(40) people he considered enemies of the Earth. One of the Unabomber’s victims was Gilbert Murray, president of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry group. Kaczynski believed that Murray and the timber industry were contributing to the destruction of the environment. Another victim, Thomas Mosser, an advertising executive, was falsely accused by the 
Unabomber of helping Exxon clean up its

(50) public image after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. In Kaczynski’s manifesto, he advocates a revolution whose object “will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis for the present society.” Many analysts like Ralph R. Reiland argue that Kaczynski took the ideas of environmental groups such as Earth First! and pushed them to the extreme. Far 
left radicals like Kaczynski, he notes, take the

(60) ideas of other extremists and violently act on them. Reiland writes: “In short, the Unabomber was no intellectual loner.” 
Leftist radicals are by no means the only extremists who promote violence, however. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two right-wing extremists associated with the militia movement, were convicted of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City in April 1995, killing 168

(70) people in the process. McVeigh and Nichols—like others from the militia movement—mistrust government just as Kaczynski does, but for very different reasons. Militia members assert that the government conspires to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Those involved in the militia movement contend that it is necessary to maintain a body of armed 
citizens and a stockpile of weapons in order

(80) to defend the people against a tyrannical government. In addition, many within the movement believe that the government protects minorities at the expense of white males. According to John M. Swomley, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, militias “are anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and tend to accept fundamentalist white-supremacist and anti-Semitic theology as well 
as the subordination of women.”

(90) As the above examples illustrate, left and right wing extremists— while holding antithetical views—often arrive at similar solutions to perceived problems. Both Kaczynski and McVeigh mistrusted government, for instance, and both used bombs as a means of challenging the status quo. The straight line that illustrates the political spectrum, in fact, often turns into a 
circle with extremists from the right and left

(100) occupying the same position. While the Unabomber did not go so far as to call for the abolition of government, other extremists on the left do. Anarchists, for example, believe that government is oppressive and always undesirable. They advocate a state ruled by no political authority. In this regard they are in agreement with those from the militia movement. However, while the aim of 
anarchists is to turn over the means of

 (110) production to the workers in order to achieve an egalitarian society, many of those in the militia movement desire a return to the days when white men had more authority and control.
Some commentators argue that extremist views—but not extremist actions—such as those held by Kaczynski and McVeigh can benefit society by acting as a catalyst for 
change. For example, Marc E. Fisher, a

(120) political and religious analyst, contends that Jesus Christ was considered an extremist in his time. Fisher argues that Christ’s doctrines of brotherly love and forgiveness, however, “began a movement that would eventually change the lives of millions, indeed billions, of people” for the good. Many detractors also considered 1960s civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist. King turned that label around, asking those who would

(130) maintain racial segregation: “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” 
Neither Jesus nor King advocated violence. However, many would argue that extremist ideas—while perhaps stimulating— inevitably lead to violent and hateful actions. For example, while members of the environmental 
group Earth First! Do not publicly endorse

(140) violence; some commentators contend that individuals like Theodore Kaczynski nevertheless feel encouraged by the group’s ideas to commit violent acts. And while not everyone in the militia movement advocates the bombing of federal buildings, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols evidently felt that the ideas espoused by militia groups justified the bombing that killed scores of people. At 
their worst, extreme ideas can lead to the

(150) deaths of vast numbers of people, as witnessed by the millions killed in World War II as a result of the hatred spewed by Adolf Hitler.