2 RC from Kaplan Workshop

**qhoc0010** · 12-07-2004, 06:12 PM

Passage I

Use this passage to refer to questions 1 to 5:

Proponents of legalized gambling tend to stress its economic benefits while opponents point to its social costs. Because communities that embrace gambling experience both negative and positive impacts, Native American tribal leaders, governors, mayors, and citizens need to know which effects are more significant. However, much of the existing research on the economic impact of gambling is flawed by insufficient data, poor or underdeveloped methodology, or researchers’ biases. Furthermore, high-quality and relevant research focusing on the social effects of gambling is virtually nonexistent.

Much of the research used to support the introduction of legalized gambling is based on testimonial evidence of casino employees who enthusiastically describe better jobs, improved health and retirement benefits, and new homes and vehicles obtained through work for casinos. In a survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), for example, respondents in five out of nine communities surveyed cited new employment opportunities as a "very positive advantage" of gambling. In the same vein, statistical information from Atlantic City, where casino gambling was introduced in 1977, indicates that the unemployment rate decreased from 12.2 percent in 1976 to 7.8 percent in 1998. However, such positive reports often ignore other facts, such as the failure to achieve expected economic benefits and the impact on existing small business owners. In the same NORC study cited above, respondents in the remaining four communities surveyed indicated that unemployment remained a problem. In the case of Atlantic City, the Restaurant and Tavern Association reported that the number of non-casino restaurants and taverns dropped from 311 in 1978 to 66 in 1998. Mixed research findings can also be found with respect to Native American tribal communities. Many tribal members affirm that the advent of casinos has provided jobs; made possible improved hospitals, clinic facilities and schools; and provided resources to make investments in other industries and enterprises. However, some employees in tribal casinos complain about lack of job security, absence of federal and state antidiscrimination laws, and lack of workers’ compensation benefits.

Social costs of gambling are also important to regulatory decisions. However, social costs have not been adequately studied, and identification of the social effects of gambling is hampered by the tendency of individuals who suffer from negative effects from gambling also to suffer from other addictive disorders, thus complicating the process of attributing negative effects to any one cause. Furthermore, in destination casino resort areas, the economic benefits are captured locally while most of the social costs are exported elsewhere – that is, to where the gamblers actually reside. A broader geographical perspective may lead to a far different conclusion than a locally focused study. In order for elected officials and their constituents to choose an appropriate direction with respect to legal gambling, high quality research is needed that will focus on both the social and economic impacts of this industry.

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to:

(A) reconcile conflicting points of view

(B) analyze a social issue

(C) advocate further research

(D) challenge a research finding

(E) summarize a research finding

2. In the first paragraph the author is primarily concerned with:

(A) questioning a need

(B) articulating a thesis

(C) presenting a hypothesis

(D) predicting an outcome

(E) describing existing research

3. The author refers to "testimonial evidence" in the first sentence of Paragraph 2 most likely in order to:

(A) imply a lack of rigor in identifying evidence to be included

(B) indicate that the evidence was given under oath

(C) suggest that a rigorous standard in including evidence was followed

(D) emphasize the probative value of the statements in question

(E) draw a contrast with the results of the survey referenced in the following sentence

4. The author refers to the unemployment rate in Atlantic City most likely in order to:

(A) indicate a problem with the NORC survey

(B) provide an example of evidence cited in favor of legalized gambling

(C) illustrate that a correlation does not necessarily represent causality

(D) confirm the validity of the NORC survey

(E) suggest a negative consequence of legalized gambling

5. According to the passage, the geographical breadth of a study of the effects of destination casino gambling would have which of the following impacts?

(A) Studies of smaller geographical areas are likely to show less social and economic impact.

(B) Studies of larger geographical areas are likely to show more economic impact and less social impact.

(C) Studies of smaller geographical areas are likely to show less social impact and more economic impact

(D) Studies of larger geographical areas are likely to show more significant impact.

(E) The size of the geographical area would not have significant impact on the findings of a study.

Passage II

Refer to the passage below for questions 6 to 10.

The publication of a substantially complete human genome sequence has the potential to enable scientists to turn their attention to studying the significance of genetic variation, which is today at the core of research on cancers, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, neurologic and psychiatric disorders, and other diseases. Many of these diseases are influenced by both genetics and environmental exposure. The latter influence has been studied, to date, at high levels of exposure. Now, if gene expression in microarray assays and protein expression in proteomic studies can be analyzed into well-differentiated patterns, such research should lead to vastly improved capability to address questions about low-level exposure to chemicals and to ionizing radiation, particularly in individuals with genetic susceptibility. That issue is currently among the most controversial and uncertain aspects of environmental health and risk assessment. Provided that barriers are not erected that prevent researchers from having access to identifiable genetic information for such studies, the marriage of genetics and public health should usher in a golden age for the science of environmental health.

A barrier looms, however, that could block the large population studies needed to answer questions about environmental exposure and its impact: ill conceived proposals at the state and national levels aimed at protecting the confidentiality of genetic information. One legislative proposal, introduced as "the Genetic Privacy Act," would require complex procedures for informed consent, review, and management of genetic records. The requirements for individual consent in this act may be impractical for population studies involving valuable genetic samples and/or data previously collected on thousands of subjects. Another proposal, focusing primarily on genetic testing and care of individual patients, would mandate that all identifiers be removed from genetic data before such data is placed in a database. However, the genetic linkage and association studies required for progress in human genetics, genetic epidemiology, and ecogenetics cannot be conducted with anonymous databases.

A better alternative exists that can appropriately balance demand for privacy with scientific research. Consideration should be given to requiring "Certificates of Confidentiality," with concomitant designation of accountability and delineation of required procedures for genetic studies, analogous to those currently issued by the federal government for alcohol and substance abuse studies. This system of certification, accountability, and procedural safeguards has worked effectively to allow access to confidential alcohol and substance records for appropriate research while protecting individual privacy.

6. The passage is chiefly concerned with:

(A) warning that proposed regulations may hamper valuable scientific research

(B) arguing against the regulation of human genetic information

(C) demonstrating the benefits of genetic research

(D) advocating protection of individual privacy with respect to genetic information

(E) recommending a method of controlling access to genetic information

7. The author most probably mentions several specific types of diseases in the first sentence of the passage to:

(A) encourage scientists to direct their attention to the core issues of human disease

(B) suggest the necessity of regulations to limit environmental exposure to chemicals and ionizing radiation

(C) identify those illnesses caused by high levels of exposure to chemicals and ionizing radiation

(D) emphasize the importance of genetic research to real human problems

(E) identify those illnesses having the capability to be triggered by relatively low levels of exposure to chemicals and ionizing radiation

8. It can be inferred that the proposal described in the last sentence of Paragraph 2 would be ineffective because it would:

(A) compromise the privacy of test subjects

(B) eliminate a condition necessary for successful research

(C) render the study of human genetics impossible

(D) require generalizing from the experience of individual patients

(E) violate the provisions of the Genetic Privacy Act

9. Which of the following best describes the structure of the second paragraph of the passage?

(A) Two proposals are described, and a shortcoming of each is identified.

(B) Two proposals are described and a shortcoming common to both is identified.

(C) A proposal is described, and a correction is suggested.

(D) A warning is made about two proposals, and a third proposal adopts the best features of each.

(E) Two proposals are contrasted and a third is alluded to.

10. The author implies that there currently exists a need for:

(A) removal of all barriers protecting privacy in genetic research

(B) simplification of the conditions of the Genetic Privacy Act

(C) strict guidelines protecting the privacy of a small number of individuals

(D) investigation into high levels of exposure to radiation hazards

(E) data that analyze the response of test subjects to everyday environmental factors

**qhoc0010** · 12-07-2004, 06:13 PM

PASSAGE 1 EXPLAINED

Topic: Legalized gambling

Scope: Research on the pros and cons of legalized gambling

Purpose: To advocate further research

Paragraph Structure:

Paragraph 1: Indicates that current research findings are inadequate to support an informed decision on legalized gambling.

Paragraph 2: Cites specific, and conflicting results regarding economic costs/benefits of legalized gambling.

Paragraph 3: Points to complications that make assessing social costs difficult, but imperative.

1. Choice (C)

Based on our analysis, Choice (C) is correct.. From the get-go, our author emphasizes that citizens and policy-makers need to know about the significant effects of gambling, but that current economic research is flawed and social research is nearly non-existent. In short, more research is necessary, a theme the passage returns to at the end.

No "reconciliation" (A) is attempted; if those in favor of and opposed to gambling are ever to be reconciled, it certainly won’t be on the basis of the research that exists now. (B) may sound tempting, but remember, the "social" issue is part of Paragraph 3 only. The challenge to existing research (D), and indeed its summary (E), come in Paragraph One only.

2. Choice (B)

Choice (B) is correct here, because it sums up everything in the paragraph: Society needs more information than current research can provide. (A) is 180 degrees off – the paragraph states a need rather than questioning it. A hypothesis (C) is a working explanation, but that’s far from what we get here. We might speculate as to the outcome (D) if the necessary research isn’t done, but speculation is all that it’d be; the author never goes there. (E) is true of part of the paragraph but ignores why the author has put the paragraph there in toto.

3. Choice (A)

Testimonials are ordinarily given in support of a claim or fact, and these are in support of casinos. But the author has just gotten through explaining how weak and unpersuasive the current evidence is! We must pick up, therefore, a strong sense that these first person thumbs-up from casino employees need to be taken with a grain of salt, and so Choice (A) is correct.

(B) refers to a different meaning of testimony altogether. (C) and (D) are each, in its own way, contradicted by the author, who is not at all happy with the state of things. The sentence that follows (E) is in fact equally enthusiastic about casinos.

4. Choice (B)

The Keyword phrase "In the same vein" tells us that the Atlantic City evidence is "more of the same," and what precedes it is the general discussion of evidence in favor of gambling. So choice (B) should be something of a slam dunk. Use those Keywords!

The fact that unemployment dropped in Atlantic City is consistent with the NORC study, contrary to (A), but doesn’t in and of itself validate the survey (D) – only better research would do that. (C) sounds impressive but has nothing to do with the detail at hand; and of course (E) is the opposite of what we’re looking for here.

5. Choice (C)

The entire reference goes like so:

Furthermore, in destination casino resort areas, the economic benefits are captured locally while most of the social costs are exported elsewhere – that is, to where the gamblers actually reside. A broader geographical perspective may lead to a far different conclusion than a locally focused study.

What’s the gist of this? Basically, that a local study would see only the local economic benefits, with none of the exported social costs. Thus a local study would seem to be disproportionately skewed in the economic favor of gambling – and (C) is correct.

Notice that (A), (B), and (E) contradict this pre-phrase. (D) might seem to be implied, but a "far different conclusion" isn’t necessarily more "significant."

PASSAGE 2 EXPLAINED

Topic: Human genetic research

Scope: The privacy issue that could impede the study of genetics and environment.

Purpose: To persuade the reader that regulations to protect privacy may thwart research efforts into the relationship between the environment, genetics, and public health

Paragraph Structure:

Paragraph 1: Describes the impending benefits of human genetic research.

Paragraph 2: Mentions two particular legislative proposals and identifies a possible negative impact of each on research

Paragraph 3: Suggests an alternative focus for regulation.

6. Choice (A)

Correct choice (A) captures the entire scope and purpose of the passage.

(B) is incorrect because the author criticizes two particular regulations, not the concept of regulating information at all. (C) only describes the first paragraph of the passage, and misses the warning. (D) and (E) focus on only a part of the passage, distorting the author’s primary purpose. While the author suggests an area for regulation, thus acknowledging that regulation may be a necessary evil, the author’s main focus is on the benefits of research and the dangers of impeding it.

7. Choice (D)

Paragraph 1 prepares the reader for the author’s argument in paragraph 2: that currently proposed regulations will hamper genetic research. It does so by persuading the reader of the importance of genetic research, particularly in terms of its relation to those illnesses most likely to have impacted the reader or those close to him. That makes (D) correct.

Although the passage mentions areas to which scientists will soon direct their attention, (A) is incorrect because the author clearly views this direction of attention as a natural outcome of publication of the human genome sequence. The author does not need to "encourage" what will naturally happen. (B) mentions "necessity of regulations to limit environmental exposure," but although it can be inferred from the information in paragraph 1 that regulating environmental exposure to chemicals and ionizing regulation could be identified as desirable by research findings, this is not the reason the author identifies the specific diseases in the lines in question. (C) and (E) identify a relationship between diseases and exposure that is stronger than anything provided by the passage (i.e. "causes," "triggered by"). (C) and (E) are also incorrect because the passage does not enumerate the diseases to identify them with a particular level of exposure.

8. Choice (B)

The objection to that proposal, the second one described in paragraph 2, is that the research the author wants done "cannot be conducted with anonymous databases." Well, anything without which a course of action cannot occur qualifies as a condition necessary for that course of action to occur. And that makes (B) correct. Since an absence of anonymity is a necessary condition here, science cannot achieve its goals under the totally-anonymous proposal #2, or so says the author.

Contrary to (A), our author would like to see a little compromising of test subjects’ privacy, so as to garner the right data. (C) goes too far: Human genetics can continue to be studied even if the privacy barriers are not lifted. (Those studies would simply be incomplete, that’s all.) Any study of test subjects’ exposure to environmental stimuli would require generalization from individuals (D), so that is hardly a weakness of proposal #2. And of course proposals #1 and 2 are separate, not linked (E).

9. Choice (A)

The paragraph in question begins with a first proposal, the Genetic Privacy Act. It continues with "Another proposal," referred to in the fourth sentence. Each of these sentences is followed by a sentence identifying the shortcoming of the particular proposal. That’s how you could have predicted what the right answer would look like; that’s how correct choice (A) does look.

(B) is half right, but each proposal has its own unique shortcoming. "A" proposal (C) is off the mark, and the proposal we get in paragraph 3 isn’t a correction but a wholly new one. That proposal is no amalgam (D), even if the phrase "A warning is made" were applicable, which it isn’t. And the third proposal isn’t alluded to (E) until a paragraph later.

10. Choice (E)

Correct choice (E) stems from the 4th and 5th sentences of paragraph 1. The passage’s entire thrust on public health, the reference to "low levels," the generalization about chemicals and radiation, the earlier references to a variety of diseases, and the Emphasis Keywords "most controversial and uncertain" all add up to the author’s eagerness to use genetic information to combat the everyday environmental hazards plaguing us all. You have to figure that when Emphasis signals are present, a question is likely to follow.

(A) goes too far; remember the author wants to "balance" the needs of privacy and the needs of science. As for (B), it is the procedures of the Genetic Privacy Act that are too complex, not the Act’s "conditions"; and in any event by paragraph 3 the author seems to have written off the Act in favor of his own solution. (C) goes too far in the other direction from (A), and in any case, the reference to "a small group" is unsupported. (D) describes research that is already being done; see paragraph 1.