Sharpen your grad school prep with a fresh GRE practice question, updated daily.
The city council's annual budget report for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY2023) is summarized below. The city's total budget for FY2023 was $350 million.
FY2023 City Budget Allocation by Category:
FY2023 Public Safety Department Budget Allocation:
| Sub-Department | Allocation Percentage of Public Safety Budget |
|---|---|
| Police | 60% |
| Fire | 25% |
| Emergency Medical | 10% |
| Other | 5% |
Based on the information provided, how much more money, in millions of dollars, was allocated to the Police sub-department than to the combined allocation of the Fire and Emergency Medical sub-departments in FY2023?
First, determine the total budget allocated to the Public Safety Department. The city's total budget for FY2023 was $350 million, and Public Safety received 30% of this total.
Public Safety Budget = 0.30 * $350 million = $105 million.
Next, calculate the allocation for the Police sub-department. The table shows that Police received 60% of the Public Safety Budget.
Police Allocation = 0.60 * $105 million = $63 million.
Then, calculate the combined allocation for the Fire and Emergency Medical sub-departments. Fire received 25% and Emergency Medical received 10% of the Public Safety Budget. Their combined allocation is (25% + 10%) = 35% of the Public Safety Budget.
Combined Fire and Emergency Medical Allocation = 0.35 * $105 million = $36.75 million.
Finally, find how much more money was allocated to Police than to the combined Fire and Emergency Medical sub-departments by subtracting the latter from the former.
Difference = Police Allocation - Combined Fire and Emergency Medical Allocation
Difference = $63 million - $36.75 million = $26.25 million.
Therefore, the Police sub-department received $26.25 million more than the combined allocation of the Fire and Emergency Medical sub-departments.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage discusses the precise definitions and hierarchical relationships among different types of quadrilaterals. The context demands words that reflect these definitional distinctions and implications.
For blank (i), the phrase "absent the condition of equilateral sides" indicates that this absence prevents a rectangle from being a square. "Precludes" (meaning prevents from happening; makes impossible) accurately captures this meaning. "Exempts" means to free from an obligation, which is not suitable here. "Dissociates" means to disconnect or separate, which is too general and doesn't convey the definitive prevention implied by classification. "Mitigates" means to lessen the severity, which is incorrect in this context.
For blank (ii), a rhombus needs "the additional stipulation of right angles" in order to *qualify* or *prove* its status as a rectangle. "Establish" (meaning to show to be true or valid) fits this perfectly, as the additional property would confirm its categorization. "Validate" is a close synonym, but "establish" implies setting a condition for inclusion more strongly in a definitional context. "Augment" means to increase or make larger, which is irrelevant. "Restrict" means to limit, which is the opposite of qualifying for membership.
For blank (iii), the final sentence asks which properties are "truly ___ for their respective definitions." The passage emphasizes discerning defining characteristics from coincidental ones. "Constitutive" (meaning forming an essential part of something; fundamental) is the best fit, highlighting that these properties are fundamental to the definition. "Ancillary" means providing necessary support to the primary activities, which suggests a secondary role, contrary to the idea of defining properties. "Peripheral" means relating to the edge or periphery, not the core. "Derivative" means originating from something else, which doesn't capture the essence of a defining characteristic.
The sentence describes Professor Sharma's treatise as being contrary to her reputation for making complex ideas accessible. This implies the treatise itself was difficult to understand. The semicolon introduces a clause that explains *why* it was difficult: its dense prose and allusions to concepts that "often obscured her central argument, leaving even seasoned scholars struggling to grasp its implications." Both blanks must therefore convey a sense of difficulty or obscurity.
For the first blank, "inscrutable" (impossible to understand or interpret) perfectly fits the idea that the treatise was hard to comprehend despite the author's reputation. For the second blank, "recondite" (dealing with very profound, difficult, or abstruse subject matter) accurately describes concepts that would cause even seasoned scholars to struggle and obscure an argument. Thus, the pair "inscrutable," "recondite" forms a logically consistent and coherent sentence.
Why other options are incorrect:
Early 20th-century anthropology, deeply rooted in evolutionary frameworks, frequently cast non-Western societies as mere "survivals" of humanity's past, existing on a lower rung of a presumed universal ladder of development. This perspective, often bolstered by colonial agendas, led to ethnographic accounts that were less objective observations than they were reinforcing narratives of European cultural supremacy. While proponents argued for a systematic approach to cultural diversity, the interpretive lens applied was often unapologetically teleological (line 4), predetermining outcomes and minimizing the intrinsic value of distinct cultural trajectories. Contemporary scholars, by contrast, emphasize historical contingency, internal dynamics, and the inherent rationality of diverse social structures, challenging these earlier, simplistic categorizations and advocating for a polyvocal understanding of human experience.
The author uses the phrase "unapologetically teleological" (line 4) primarily to suggest that the early anthropological interpretive lens was
The phrase "unapologetically teleological" describes the interpretive lens of early 20th-century anthropology. The passage criticizes this lens for "predetermining outcomes and minimizing the intrinsic value of distinct cultural trajectories." The word "teleological" refers to the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than their cause, implying a predetermined end or goal. The qualifier "unapologetically" suggests that this teleological view was asserted without hesitation, doubt, or self-criticism. Therefore, the phrase denotes a perspective that confidently, even defiantly, imposed a fixed path of development onto diverse cultures, which the author clearly views as a flaw. Option [A] accurately captures both the "unapologetic" aspect (firmly asserting) and the "teleological" aspect (predetermined developmental trajectory for all societies), aligning with the author's critical tone.
Option [B] is incorrect because "unapologetically" means *without* apology or regret. The passage clearly critiques this approach, implying a lack of acknowledgment of its limitations, not a regretful one. Option [C] is incorrect because while "teleological" does relate to purpose or end goals, this option is too neutral and misses the critical force of "unapologetically" and the author's overall negative assessment of this past approach. The author is not simply stating a factual characteristic but highlighting a problematic one. Option [D] is incorrect because it directly contradicts the passage's description of early anthropology's flaws, which involved imposing a single ladder of development and narratives of supremacy, rather than advocating for diversity and inclusivity.
The GRE Analytical Writing Analyze an Issue task presents a claim and a reason, requiring test-takers to articulate a nuanced position. Considering the provided prompt:
Claim: To effectively address the most pressing global challenges, leaders must prioritize practical, immediate solutions over long-term, theoretical strategies.
Reason: The urgency of current crises demands decisive action, not protracted planning.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. You should also consider ways in which the claim and/or reason might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Which of the following skills is most centrally tested in constructing the opening paragraph of an effective response to this prompt?
The core task of the opening paragraph in a GRE Analyze an Issue essay is to present the writer's thesis—a clear, arguable, and defensible position on the provided issue. This involves understanding the complexity of the claim and reason, and then stating precisely where one stands, even if that stance is a qualified agreement or disagreement. The prompt specifically asks the writer to "discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason" and to "explain how these considerations shape your position." Articulating this initial position is the most crucial function of the opening paragraph, setting the stage for the entire essay.
Generating relevant examples (Distractor 1) is vital for supporting the thesis but typically occurs in the body paragraphs rather than being the *central* skill for the opening. Developing a cohesive paragraph structure (Distractor 2) is a general writing skill important throughout the essay, but it describes the form, not the primary content challenge, of the opening paragraph. Critically analyzing and refuting counterarguments (Distractor 3) is a sophisticated argumentative technique usually deployed in later body paragraphs to strengthen one's position by addressing opposing viewpoints, not the initial task of stating one's own stance.
Join students receiving our daily GRE practice questions and high-yield study tips.