classicist22

1. 'Say', at the beginning of a sentence, just means something like 'you know', or 'you know what?'. It can also be an expression of mild surprise, i.e. 'Say! I didn't know that!'. It sounds a little old-fashioned, to me, at least. 2. 'To take someone up on something' means to accept someone's offer. Hope that helps :)

Well, looks like we're not the only ones having trouble, kronique - take a look at thegoat's post on this thread... http://www.www.urch.com/forums/just-finished-my-gre/51246-urgent-help-needed-plz-regarding-gre.html Hmmm.... wonder if there's been some mix-up between the official ETS site (which as far as I can see, has no 'university selection tool') and that missiongre site, which does have an icon called 'university selection tool'. Weird - I could swear that link (given by stephanie_wise) was to the missiongre site a few days ago. And now it's changed. Maybe the GREs are making me crazy?! :hmm:

Maybe it's just me, but I can't find the university selection tool anywhere on that site. Could you (or anyone else who knows) be more specific with the link? Thanks :)

No prob - happy to help! :)

Tarun, I don't know whether it's true or not that examiners have access to these books and are looking out for copied phrases. But my general feeling is - why risk it? Plagiarism's taken very seriously these days, especially by American universities, so (besides the moral issues at stake here) I'd say it's not worth jeopardising your entire application (and possibly future) for the sake of an introductory or concluding paragraph in a GRE essay. Of course, if you're just talking about general phrases like, "this is an example of a post hoc fallacy", I don't think anyone could accuse you of plagiarism. But I really wouldn't advise lifting specific phrases out of these books. Why not prepare and learn some phrases of your own before the exam? That's what the study guides advise anyway - to create your own template.

sorry, double post - repeated below

Hylic, I think this essay is a good start and you've made some very relevant points. I liked the way you distinguished between those individuals who could not be appreciated by their contemporaries because they were so ahead of their time, and those who could be appreciated because others identified with their ideas. In your paragraph about the first group, you could have also considered those who were unappreciated (or even derided) because their ideas were contrary to established belief systems and were thought to be heretical - e.g. Darwin's theory of evolution (which contradicted contemporary ideas of divine creation) or Copernicus' heliocentric theory. You could also tighten up on your English sentence structure, and be careful to check the essay through once you've finished. Here are a few examples of where the sentence structure could be improved: 1. "it is not necessarily the case that the contemporaries living with the individuals cannot judge or discovery the greatness of an individual." The phrase 'contemporaries living with the individuals' doesn't make much sense - people who live at the same time are contemporaries, but your phrase makes it sound as though they are living together, i.e. in the same house or something (also, the words 'living with the individuals' are unnecessary - this is the definition of 'contemporaries' anyway). The phrase 'cannot judge or discovery' should read, 'cannot judge or discover'. 2. "look back at our history" 3. "the really great individual's mind and works are beyond when he was living, and the way they conceive things is not the same as an ordinary people." Your subject changes halfway through this sentence (after the comma). 'They' is undefined - at the start of the sentence, you were talking about an individual in the singular; then it changes to plural. Also, 'an ordinary people' should read, 'an ordinary person' or 'ordinary people'. Be careful to check your singular and plural words correspond. Finally, check your facts are correct. You've mixed up two different rings :) . Wagner's opera is 'Ring cycle'; 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy is a set of books by Tolkien. But on the whole, I thought this was a pretty good essay, with some nice examples. Just try to polish up your English if you want to increase your score. Hope that helps :)

I know you're disappointed with the Verbal, but don't let that detract from the fact that you got a perfect Quant score!! That's fantastic. :tup: Also sympathise with your 'exam atmosphere' experience - I found the same sort of thing with mine last week. 'Tis just the nature of the beast, I guess. :evil: Did they at least give you a pair of earphones to block out the noise?

Graysky, you're right about the three parts: Verbal (30 mins, 30 qus), Quantative (45 mins, 28 qus) and Analysis (issue essay, 45 mins; argument essay, 30 mins). The Verbal and Quant. sections are each scored out of 800, and the computer tells you these scores immediately after you complete the tests. (The total score is 1600, not 2400 as you suggest.) The Analysis (essay) sections are scored on a scale of 1 to 6 (with 1 being very poor, and 6 being outstanding). Each of the two essays gets a score out of 6, and then the average of these two becomes your final score. These are graded by human examiners rather than the computer, so it takes longer to receive the scores. ETS (the testing service) says that test-takers within the US should receive their essay scores within two weeks of the test; for anyone outside the US, the length of time depends on the country's postal service. I'd guess that the person who told you his Verbal and Quant. scores had done the test only recently, and hadn't yet received the Analysis scores. Hope that helps. If I've got something wrong, other GRE-takers feel free to correct me :)

Hey pankaj, This same question came up last week. Here's the link: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/gre-analogies-antonyms/51017-factional.html?highlight=abandon+inhibition Hope that helps :)

I'd say B, because it's the only one that contains the necessary words, "that of". I think answer A is wrong because it makes it sound as though it is the statues, rather than the body and face, that belong to the mother and wife.

Thanks, guys... now it's on to applications, which I've heard are actually more work than the GREs! :eek:

Kaushik, I think a bridge related to art wouldn't be narrow enough. Yes, a painting is a form of art, but then, so is a statue and a novel. The clue to this question is in the unusual word, 'daguerreotype', which is an old-fashioned version of a photograph. It's not a word you hear very often. Similarly, a 'musket' is an old-fashioned type of weapon. Again, not a particularly common word. The only time I've come across it is in that traditional song... "'Oh soldier, soldier, won't you marry me, With your musket, fife and drum?' 'Oh no, sweet maid, I cannot marry you, For I have no coat to put on.' In every verse, the soldier gives another feeble excuse as to why he can't marry the maid (no shoes, no socks, etc), until he finally admits that the real reason is, "I have a wife of my own". ;)

INDISTINGUISHABLE : CONFOUND a. exceptionable : overlook b. impregnable : attack c. ostentatious : consume d. equivalent : interchange e. occluded : reveal This one's tricky, I think, but I'd say D (let me know if it's wrong, and I'll try again) Bridge: Two objects which are X can be Y-ed. Objects that are indistinguishable can be confounded (mixed up). Objects which are equivalent can be interchanged. The other options, unlike D, don't necessarily have to involve more than one object. A, B and E don't have the same bridge as in the question (something exceptionable *cannot* be overlooked, something impregnable *cannot* be attacked, something occluded *cannot* be revealed). C could work (something ostentatious *can* be consumed), but the bridge is too weak, and consumption doesn't require more than one ostentatious object. PARSIMONY: MISER a. temerity : despot b. belligerence : traitor c. remorse : delinquent d. equanimity : guardian e. rebelliousness : insurgent Answer: E Bridge: X is the primary characteristic of Y (or in other words: by definition, Y displays X). By definition, a miser displays parsimony (otherwise he wouldn't be a miser), and by definition, an insurgent (meaning 'one who rises up against') displays rebelliousness. As for other answers, all the Xs *could* be characteristics of the Ys, but they are not the *primary* characteristics. You asked why the answer's not B; 'belligerent' means 'aggressive' or 'warlike' (its Latin roots mean, 'waging war'). Is aggression a characteristic of a traitor? It *could* be, but it doesn't *have* to be, by definition. A traitor could be sneaky and insidious rather than aggressive; he could betray people by whispering secrets rather than fighting outright. Belligerence is not a traitor's *primary* characteristic, but rebelliousness *is* an insurgent's primary characteristic. NITPICK: CRITICIZE:: (A) mock: imitate (B) complain: argue © interrogate: probe (D) fret: vex (E) cavil: object Answer: E Bridge: Y is a more extreme form of X (or in other words: X is a more minor form of Y). If I nitpick, I might voice minor objections to your work; if I criticise it, the objections will be more serious. In the same way, to 'cavil' means to 'quibble' (make minor or petty objections), whereas 'to object' is more extreme.

1. TILE : MOSAIC a. wood : totem b. stich : sampler c. ink : scorll d. pedestal : column e. tapestry : rug Answer: B Bridge: X is a small part of Y, the whole (or, in other words: many Xs make up a Y). So just as many small tiles make up a mosaic, many small stitches make up a sampler. Answer E doesn't work, because a tapestry, as a decorated and woven piece of fabric, is more of a synonym for rug - many tapestries do not make up a rug. 2. EUPHEMISM : OFFENSE a. rhetoric : persuation b. prevarication : truth c. metaphor : description d. repetition : boredom e. conciliation : appeasement Answer: I'd say B. Bridge: X is used to avoid Y. So the aim of a euphemism (like 'pass away' instead of 'die') is to avoid causing offense, and prevarication is used to avoid telling the truth. As for the other answers, A, C and E don't have Xs which are used to *avoid* the Ys (rhetoric is often used to persuade, metaphors are used to describe, conciliation is used to appease), while in D, the X *causes* Y. 3. CONTRACT : IMPLODE a. expand : swell b. descend : plummet c. add : accelerate d. cool : solidify e. strech : flex Answer: B Bridge: Y is a more extreme form of X. When an object contracts, it's made smaller and/or tighter; when it implodes, it becomes so small and/or tight that it collapses in on itself completely. (Hope you like my very scientific explanation ;) ) In the same way, to 'descend' is just to 'move downwards', whereas to 'plummet' is to fall headlong downwards - quickly. I think I see why you wanted to choose D - were you thinking of 'solidify' as a more extreme form of 'cool' (i.e. 'frozen solid' = solidified?). For that answer, I'd say the bridge isn't quite right - cooling doesn't necessarily have anything to do with solidification. When you're hot and cooled by a fan or air conditioning, you don't turn solid. As for the other answers, A and E have X and Ys that are more or less synonymous (expand = swell, stretch = flex), and C doesn't make much sense (adding doesn't have anything to do with accelerating - unless maybe adding speed?) 4.COHABIT : RESIDE a. conspire : plot b. coincide : contradict c. secrete : conceal d. infiltrate : influence e. sentence : prosecute This one is a bit fiendish :evil:. I like it. At first I thought the bridge was just: X is synonymous with Y. But that means that both A and C would fit, so the bridge needs tightening. So: Answer: A Bridge: X is Y, done jointly. One person can 'reside', but 'cohabitation' involves (at least) two. One person can 'plot', but to 'conspire' needs at least two. The trick to this question is in the 'co' prefix - it means 'together' (and 'con' means 'together with'). So: COhabit - to live together; CONspire - to plot together. The evil testmakers have tried to throw you with trick answer B - COincide (which does indeed mean to 'occur together'), but you know it can't be right because the bridge doesn't work: 'coincide' doesn't mean two people 'contradicting' together. 5. ATTACK : VANQUISHED A. woo :adored b. smother : choked c. spy : investigated d. goad : provoked e. guess: calculated Answer: D Bridge: X is done with a view to Y. You attack someone with a view to vanquishing (defeating) them; you goad someone with a view to provoking them. B doesn't quite work because of a technicality: you don't smother with a view to choking, you smother with a view to suffocating (as far as I know - not having had personal experience of this! ;) )