GRE Question of the Day - Free GRE Practice Questions

Question 1

A company initially allocated $120,000 for its quarterly operational budget. From this amount, 1/4 was designated for fixed expenditures such as rent and salaries. Of the remaining budget, 0.3 was then allocated to variable costs, including utilities and supplies. Subsequently, 2/5 of the budget still available after variable costs was earmarked for a new research and development project.

If an unforeseen expense of $7,500 was incurred and paid from the last remaining portion of the budget, what was the final amount, in dollars, left in the company's quarterly operational budget?

Accepted Answer

30300. Let the initial budget be B = $120,000.Step 1: Calculate fixed expenditures and the remaining budget.Fixed expenditures = (1/4) * B = (1/4) * $120,000 = $30,000.Budget remaining after fixed expenditures = $120,000 - $30,000 = $90,000.Step 2: Calculate variable costs and the new remaining budget.Variable costs = 0.3 * (Budget remaining after fixed expenditures) = 0.3 * $90,000 = $27,000.Budget remaining after variable costs = $90,000 - $27,000 = $63,000.Step 3: Calculate the allocation for the R&D project and the subsequent remaining budget.R&D project allocation = (2/5) * (Budget remaining after variable costs) = (2/5) * $63,000 = $25,200.Budget remaining after R&D project = $63,000 - $25,200 = $37,800.Step 4: Account for the unforeseen expense.Final remaining budget = (Budget remaining after R&D project) - $7,500 = $37,800 - $7,500 = $30,300.The final amount left in the company's quarterly operational budget is $30,300.Distractor Analysis:33300: This distractor results from an error in the order of operations for the last two deductions. A test-taker might incorrectly subtract the unforeseen expense ($7,500) before calculating and subtracting the R&D project allocation. If $63,000 - $7,500 = $55,500, and then 2/5 of this amount ($22,200) is deducted: $55,500 - $22,200 = $33,300.24900: This distractor arises from incorrectly calculating variable costs as a fraction of the *initial* budget instead of the *remaining* budget. If variable costs were 0.3 * $120,000 = $36,000, then: $120,000 - $30,000 - $36,000 = $54,000. Then R&D = (2/5) * $54,000 = $21,600. $54,000 - $21,600 = $32,400. Finally, $32,400 - $7,500 = $24,900.7500: This distractor is obtained by incorrectly calculating the R&D allocation as a fraction of the *initial* budget instead of the *remaining* budget. If R&D was (2/5) * $120,000 = $48,000, then: From Step 2, $63,000 remained after variable costs. Deducting the incorrect R&D: $63,000 - $48,000 = $15,000. Finally, $15,000 - $7,500 = $7,500.

Question 2

The pervasive phenomenon of confirmation bias, where individuals selectively seek and interpret evidence to affirm their existing beliefs, makes it challenging for cognitive psychologists to devise experimental protocols that yield truly objective insights; consequently, the findings of studies particularly susceptible to this bias must be approached with a substantial degree of _______.

Select the two words that, when used to complete the sentence, fit the meaning of the sentence as a whole and produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning.

Accepted Answer

circumspection. The sentence describes how confirmation bias makes it difficult to achieve objective insights, implying that findings from studies prone to this bias should be treated with caution. The blank requires words that convey carefulness, wariness, or good judgment in the face of potential unreliability. 'Circumspection' means the quality of being wary and unwilling to take risks; 'prudence' means the quality of acting with or showing care and thought for the future. Both words accurately capture the necessary cautious approach when dealing with findings that might be skewed by bias, and they produce sentences with equivalent meanings.Of the incorrect answer choices, 'exactitude' refers to precision or accuracy, which, while desirable in research, does not capture the cautious *approach* to potentially flawed findings. 'Certitude' means absolute certainty, which is antithetical to the critical evaluation required for biased findings. 'Credulity' means a tendency to believe too readily, directly opposite to the skepticism implied by the context. 'Resolve' signifies firm determination, which is irrelevant to how research findings should be evaluated for their validity.

Question 3

Facing a vociferous public backlash against the proposed carbon tax, the government's carefully worded press release, though offering some minor fiscal adjustments, failed to meaningfully __________ the fears of industry leaders and environmental activists alike, who remained staunchly opposed.

Select the two words that, when used to complete the sentence, fit the meaning of the sentence as a whole and produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning.

Accepted Answer

mollify. The sentence describes a situation where the government's press release failed to diminish the strong fears of industry leaders and environmental activists. The words mollify and placate are synonyms that both mean to appease or reduce the anger or anxiety of someone, thus perfectly capturing what the government attempted but failed to do. Both words convey the idea of calming or soothing fears.Conversely, "exacerbate," which means to make a problem or negative feeling worse, is incorrect because the government's action would not intend to amplify fears. Similarly, "underscore," meaning to emphasize or highlight, does not fit the context; the press release aimed to lessen, not call attention to, the existing fears.

Question 4

In a meticulously controlled experiment, researchers determined that the dosage D of a new therapeutic compound had to remain _______ 5 mg/kg body weight, strictly satisfying D < 5, to avoid systemic toxicity while ensuring optimal patient response.

Select the two answer choices that, when used to complete the sentence, fit the meaning of the sentence as a whole and produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning.

Accepted Answer

under. The sentence describes a condition where the dosage D must "strictly satisf[y] D < 5." This means that the dosage must be less than, or smaller than, 5 mg/kg. The blank requires two words that are synonymous with "less than" or "below" in this context.Options "under" and "beneath" both accurately convey the meaning of being less than a specified value, making them a fitting synonym pair. "Exceeding" and "surpassing" imply a value greater than 5, which contradicts the inequality D < 5. "Equaling" suggests D = 5, which is also not permitted by the strict inequality. "Approaching" describes a dynamic process of nearing a value, not a static condition of being below it. Therefore, under and beneath are the two choices that complete the sentence to convey the specified meaning.

Question 5

Consider the following statement:In academic and professional discourse, clarity and conciseness should always take precedence over stylistic variation and the exhaustive detailing of nuanced distinctions.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.Beyond the general skills of argumentation, which specific writing competency is most directly highlighted and implicitly assessed by the analytical challenge presented in the prompt above?

Accepted Answer

The capacity to use precise and varied language to articulate complex ideas without sacrificing nuance.. The correct answer is "The capacity to use precise and varied language to articulate complex ideas without sacrificing nuance." The prompt establishes a central tension between "clarity and conciseness" on one hand, and "stylistic variation and the exhaustive detailing of nuanced distinctions" on the other. To effectively argue either for or against the statement, an essay writer must engage with the very concept of nuance, precision, and varied expression. A high-scoring essay that argues for the importance of nuance and precision would necessarily demonstrate these qualities through its own sophisticated vocabulary and varied sentence structures. Conversely, an essay that attempts to advocate for simplicity but fails to clearly or precisely define its terms would undermine its own argument. Therefore, the analytical demands of this specific issue implicitly require the test taker to demonstrate a strong command of precise and varied language.Distractor 1, "The ability to structure an argument logically with clear topic sentences and transitions," describes a fundamental skill required for *any* successful essay, but it is not *most directly* highlighted by the specific intellectual challenge posed by *this* particular issue statement. While crucial, it's a general structural competency rather than the specific linguistic skill emphasized by the prompt's content. Distractor 2, "The skill of effectively integrating evidence from external sources to support claims," is incorrect because the GRE Analyze an Issue task does not require or even encourage the use of external evidence; essays are based on reasoning and general knowledge. Distractor 3, "The facility for identifying and addressing counterarguments within the main essay body," while an important aspect of a strong analytical essay, is a strategic argumentative skill. The prompt's emphasis on the trade-offs between conciseness/clarity and nuance/stylistic variation points more acutely to the *how* of expressing complex ideas (language choice) rather than solely the *what* of argument structure (counterarguments), though both are valuable.