List of top Verbal Reasoning Questions

This passage was written in 1984.
It is now possible to hear a recording of Caruso’s singing that is far superior to any made during his lifetime. A decades-old wax-cylinder recording of this great operatic tenor has been digitized, and the digitized signal has been processed by computer to remove the extraneous sound, or ”noise,” introduced by the now ”ancient” wax-cylinder recording process. Although this digital technique needs improvement, it represents a new and superior way of recording and processing sound which overcomes many of the limitations of analog recording. In analog recording systems, the original sound is represented as a continuous waveform created by variations in the sound’s amplitude over time. When analog playback systems reproduce this waveform, however, they invariably introduce distortions. First, the waveform produced during playback differs somewhat from the original waveform. Second, the medium that stores the analog recording creates noise during playback which gets added to the recorded sounds. ... as long as the numbers remain recognizable, the original waveform will be reconstructed with little loss in quality. However, because the waveform is continuous, while its digital representation is composed of discrete numbers, it is impossible for digital systems to avoid some distortion. One kind of distortion, called ”sampling error,” occurs if the sound is sampled (i.e., its amplitude is measured) too infrequently, so that the amplitude changes more than one quantum (the smallest change in amplitude measured by the digital system) between samplings. In effect, the sound is changing too quickly for the system to record it accurately. A second form of distortion is ”quantizing error,” which arises when the amplitude being measured is not a whole number of quanta, forcing the digital recorder to round off. Over the long term, these errors are random, and the noise produced (a background buzzing) is similar to analog noise except that it only occurs when recorded sounds are being reproduced.
Although the hormone adrenaline is known to regulate memory storage, its effects on retrieval are debated. Adrenaline’s modulation of retrieval is difficult to interpret because retrieval pro- tocols usually involve new learning, which is known to be affected by adrenaline. Say, for example, that researchers test the effect of adrenaline on participants’ ability to remember a story. If participants are injected with adrenaline before being asked to recall the story, the adrenaline might enhance or impair their recall performance not by affecting retrieval directly, but rather by affecting their ability to learn the information presented in the retrieval protocol (i.e., the researcher’s questions). To evaluate the hormone’s effect on retrieval without the confounding effects of new learning, McGaugh and colleagues tested the effects of adrenaline on memory for intentionally forgotten information. Research has shown that when participants are asked to memorize two lists (list 1 and list 2) and are then instructed to forget list 1, they exhibit poorer recall of list 1 than do participants who are not instructed to forget it-a phenomenon known as intentional forgetting. This phenomenon is attributed to retrieval inhi- bition, a mechanism that makes the unwanted information less likely to be retrieved, whether intentionally or unintentionally. McGaugh and colleagues reasoned that if adrenaline enhances retrieval, it should reduce intentional forgetting. They hypothesized that participants given adrenaline after being instructed to forget list 1 would recall more words from that list than participants given a placebo. After participants memorized list 1, they were told to forget it and memorize list 2. Immediately afterwards, they received an injection of either adrenaline or a placebo and then completed a distractor task. Finally, they were asked to recall as many words as possible from list 1. Adrenaline-treated participants did indeed recall significantly more words from list 1 than placebo-treated participants, suggesting that adrenaline enhances the retrieval of intentionally forgotten memories.
Archaeological discoveries of Pacific Islander settlements on the historically uninhabited islands of the Gal´apagos Archipelago have led researchers to speculate about the nature and extent of pre-Columbian travel in the Pacific. When Thor Heyerdahl wrongly claimed that the Gal´apagos had been colonized by South Americans before the arrival of the Spanish, he revived the more general question of the technical feasibility and extent of pre-Columbian transoceanic travel. Could Pacific Islanders have traveled to the Gal´apagos, which lie 600 miles off the coast of South America? Could they, furthermore, have traveled between the Gal´apagos and South America? One factor against such travel is the wind pattern in this region of the Pacific. Because the prevailing winds generally blow from the east, Gal´apagos-bound vessels sailing from the Pacific Islands would have had to beat windward. Only the most sophisticated vessels with triangular sails are capable of this, and there is no evidence of such sails in the Pacific Islands during the period in question. A second, related point is that the winds would have consistently blown Gal´apagos-bound vessels from South America off course. A third point is the lack of archaeological evidence that Pacific Islanders reached South America. While the sweet potato, a crop of South American origin, was grown in the Pacific Islands in pre-Columbian times, the evidence suggests that it arrived via drifting plant matter rather than human transport.
What causes a helix in nature to appear with either a dextral (”right-handed,” or clockwise) twist or a sinistral (”left-handed,” or counterclockwise) twist is one of the most intriguing ques- tions in the science of form. Most scientists have maintained that the preferential handedness of objects such as DNA molecules, protein amino acids, and the shells of snails is due to chance. For example, Jacques Monod, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, attributed the twist (or ”chirality”) in molecules to the chance selection between two structurally equal molecules, one dextral and one sinistral. He proposed that the choice of twist occurred when the first molecule was formed and that this initial choice set the precedent for all subsequent molecules of that type. However, a new theory challenges the notion that chance is responsible for the predominance of one type of twist. According to this theory, the chirality found in molecules, crystals, and shells has its origins in the fundamental chirality of elementary par- ticles of matter. This theory holds that the universe is fundamentally asymmetric, or chiral, in that the weak force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature, has a handedness of its own. The effects of this force are normally observable only at the subatomic level, but they can be amplified in molecules, crystals, and shells. While the connection between the chirality of elementary particles and that of macroscopic structures, such as snail shells, is not yet fully understood, the new theory provides a potential explanation for the prevalence of specific twists in nature.
Although economic analysis of collective bargaining has traditionally focused on wages, recent studies have increasingly focused on the effects of unionization on fringe benefits such as pen- sions and health insurance. Because the costs of providing fringe benefits are tax deductible for employers, fringe benefits are effectively subsidized by the government. This tax treatment creates an incentive for employers to increase the proportion of employee compensation that is paid in the form of fringe benefits. However, not all workers value fringe benefits equally. Since the value that workers place on fringe benefits is likely to rise with their income (because the tax savings associated with fringe benefits increase with income), higher-income workers are likely to prefer a greater proportion of their compensation in the form of fringe benefits than are lower-income workers. Unions, which typically represent lower-income workers, should therefore be expected to oppose the substitution of fringe benefits for wages. However, unions often support such substitutions. One explanation for this puzzling behavior is that unions take into account the preferences not just of current members but also of potential members, who are typically younger and higher-income than current members. Another explanation is that unions are willing to accept lower wages in exchange for fringe benefits because fringe benefits help to retain workers and reduce labor turnover, thereby increasing the union’s bargaining power.