True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
Language contributes to brain development
Bilinguals have difficulties selecting the right language
Executive functions develop earlier in bilingual children
Lydia calculated with ease the expected yearly revenue of her store.
Marvin can easily summarise a complex text.
Alan weighed his different options before choosing to study Agriculture.
Despite the fire alarm going off in the midst of taking her test, Maria got an A.
It is recommended that you learn more than one language.
Bilingualism has significant advantages.
Alan weighed his different options before choosing to study Agriculture.
Bilingualism contributes to the development of ‘executive functions’.
Supervisors should monitor employees' e-mails.
Leakage of information may result in punishment.
Employees are obligated to information confidentiality.
agreeing
specifying
promising
pledging
Sign a contract stipulating his or her responsibilities.
Prevent leakage of sensitive information.
Refrain from sending personal e-mails.
Accept punitive action when necessary.
Employee discretion policies are invaluable to an organisation.
Employees are obligated to monitor e-mails.
Legislative obligations should be reinforced.
Leakage of exclusive information is detrimental to employers.
People who drink coffee appear to live longer and drinking coffee is associated with lower risk of death due to heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease. People who consume a cup of coffee a day are 12 per cent less likely to die, compared to those who do not drink coffee. This association is even stronger for those who drink two to three cups a day: they have an 18 per cent reduced chance of death. Lower mortality is present regardless of whether people drink regular or decaffeinated coffee, suggesting the association is not tied to caffeine.
Statement: Drinking coffee lowers the risk of dying of cancer.
The passage simply states that drinking coffee is ‘associated with’ a lower risk of death; not that it objectively reduces the risk of death. This indicates that there is a statistical connection between coffee drinkers and fewer cancer-related deaths, not a cause-and-effect connection. Although the primary passage concludes that people who drink coffee tend to be healthier, you cannot say for sure that coffee is the reason behind this; it could simply be a coincidence that those who enjoy coffee also tend to enjoy eating more healthily or exercising regularly.
People who drink coffee appear to live longer and drinking coffee is associated with lower risk of death due to heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease. People who consume a cup of coffee a day are 12 per cent less likely to die, compared to those who do not drink coffee. This association is even stronger for those who drink two to three cups a day: they have an 18 per cent reduced chance of death. Lower mortality is present regardless of whether people drink regular or decaffeinated coffee, suggesting the association is not tied to caffeine.
Statement: The more coffee people drink, the more they are likely to live longer lives.
The passage does state that people who drink one cup of coffee a day are 12 per cent less likely to die, while people who drink two to three cups a day have an 18 per cent reduced chance of death. However, the passage does not explain the statistical trend for people who drink more than three cups of coffee per day and you cannot simply make an assumption based on the trends presented for those who drink three or fewer cups. For all we know, those who drink more than three cups per day might be associated with shorter life expectancies.
People who drink coffee appear to live longer and drinking coffee is associated with lower risk of death due to heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease. People who consume a cup of coffee a day are 12 per cent less likely to die, compared to those who do not drink coffee. This association is even stronger for those who drink two to three cups a day: they have an 18 per cent reduced chance of death. Lower mortality is present regardless of whether people drink regular or decaffeinated coffee, suggesting the association is not tied to caffeine.
Statement: People who drink two or three cups of coffee per day have a 6 per cent higher chance of living longer compared to people who drink one cup of coffee a day.
The passage does state that people who drink one cup of coffee per day are 12 per cent less likely to die, while people who drink two to three cups per day have an 18 per cent reduced chance of death. Your initial inclination might be to simply subtract 12 from 18, which could suggest the answer is 6%. However, these statistics reflect the difference between those who don’t drink coffee at all and those who do, not those who drink one cup and those who drink two to three cups. When comparing these two groups to one another, you would get a different result.
A growing body of research suggests that the regular, high-level use of more than one language may actually improve early brain development. According to several different studies, a command of two or more languages aggrandises the ability to focus in the face of distraction, decide between competing alternatives, and disregard irrelevant information. These essential skills are grouped together, known in brain terms as ‘executive function’ and research suggests they develop ahead of time in bilingual children. While no one has yet identified the exact mechanism by which bilingualism boosts brain development, the advantage likely stems from the bilingual’s need to continually select the right language for a given situation.
Statement: The research suggests that ‘executive function’ increases with the number of languages mastered.
The primary passage mentions differences expected in the brain’s executive functions between children who speak only one language and children who have mastered more than one. However, the primary passage doesn’t state that the brain’s executive functions continue to improve as children master more than two languages, so it cannot be inferred that the correlation continues indefinitely. For instance, it is not clear whether children who speak three or more languages demonstrate greater executive functions than children who speak only two languages. Moreover, the primary passage only discusses the executive function of children’s brains, whereas the follow-on statement does not specifically relate to children.
A growing body of research suggests that the regular, high-level use of more than one language may actually improve early brain development. According to several different studies, a command of two or more languages aggrandises the ability to focus in the face of distraction, decide between competing alternatives, and disregard irrelevant information. These essential skills are grouped together, known in brain terms as ‘executive function’ and research suggests they develop ahead of time in bilingual children. While no one has yet identified the exact mechanism by which bilingualism boosts brain development, the advantage likely stems from the bilingual’s need to continually select the right language for a given situation.
Which of the following is most accurate based on the passage?
In order to answer this question, we must go over each statement and decide whether (i) it follows from the passage; and (ii) it is accurate.
The passage does link improvements in brain development with the acquisition of language, so Statement A does follow from the passage. However, rather than discussing the brain as a whole, the passage focuses only on improvements in ’executive functions’ with command of two or more languages. Consequently, Statement A might not necessarily be the most accurate answer.
Statement B does not follow from the primary passage. Although the passage states that bilinguals ’need to continually select the right language’, it does not comment on whether they have any difficulties in doing so.
Statement C does follow from the primary passage and aligns more specifically with the content of that passage (i.e. unlike statement A, statement C is not based off a generalisation of the conclusions reached in the primary passage). This suggests statement C is the ‘most’ accurate answer.
A growing body of research suggests that the regular, high-level use of more than one language may actually improve early brain development. According to several different studies, a command of two or more languages aggrandises the ability to focus in the face of distraction, decide between competing alternatives, and disregard irrelevant information. These essential skills are grouped together, known in brain terms as ‘executive function’ and research suggests they develop ahead of time in bilingual children. While no one has yet identified the exact mechanism by which bilingualism boosts brain development, the advantage likely stems from the bilingual’s need to continually select the right language for a given situation.
Which is not an example of an ‘executive function’?
'Executive functions’, as presented in the passage, facilitate the ability to:
After identifying these ‘executive functions’, you then need to identify which of the four follow-on statements demonstrate the individual’s ability to effectively benefit from their executive functions.
A growing body of research suggests that the regular, high-level use of more than one language may actually improve early brain development. According to several different studies, a command of two or more languages aggrandises the ability to focus in the face of distraction, decide between competing alternatives, and disregard irrelevant information. These essential skills are grouped together, known in brain terms as ‘executive function’ and research suggests they develop ahead of time in bilingual children. While no one has yet identified the exact mechanism by which bilingualism boosts brain development, the advantage likely stems from the bilingual’s need to continually select the right language for a given situation.
Which one of the following provides the best summary of the main point of the passage?
The passage introduces two main themes - bilingualism and ‘executive functions’ - and discuss how the former can influence the latter. Remember you are asked to determine which provides the ‘best summary’, so it should be a statement that captures the essence of the entire passage, not one specific part of the passage.
Employees working within organisations have a legislative obligation to monitor the content of e-mails sent to external bodies and to eliminate potentially sensitive internal information regardless of the perceived importance of that information. To guarantee that employees fulfil their legislative obligation and to prevent the possible leak of exclusive information, employers have prepared mandatory contracts stipulating this responsibility, to be signed by all employees, and additionally, inserted a copyright section to every external e-mail that emphasises the confidentiality of the information provided. Employees’ carelessness in handling information circulated via email may result in serious punitive action.
Which statement does not follow from the passage?
In order to answer this question, we must go over each statement and decide whether it follows from the passage.
Statement A: according to the primary passage, it is ‘employees’ who are obligated to monitor the content of e-mails; nowhere in the text does it say that this responsibility rests with supervisors. Even if your natural inclination is to assume that in practice supervisors should monitor employee emails as an added precaution, you need to remember to exclude any personal thoughts or opinions when reaching your conclusion and focus only on the primary passage. On this basis, Statement A does not follow from the passage.
Statement B: according to the text, ’employees’ carelessness in handling information circulated via email may result in serious punitive action', which is another way of saying that leakage of information will result in punishment. Statement B therefore follows (and remember, the question asks which statement does not follow).
Statement C: according to the text, 'employees working within organisations have a legislative obligation to monitor the content of e-mails…and to eliminate potentially sensitive internal information’, which indicates that: (a) the obligation rests with employees; and (b) the obligation relates to sensitive internal (i.e. confidential) information. Statement C therefore follows (and remember, the question asks which statement does not follow).
Employees working within organisations have a legislative obligation to monitor the content of e-mails sent to external bodies and to eliminate potentially sensitive internal information regardless of the perceived importance of that information. To guarantee that employees fulfil their legislative obligation and to prevent the possible leak of exclusive information, employers have prepared mandatory contracts stipulating this responsibility, to be signed by all employees, and additionally, inserted a copyright section to every external e-mail that emphasises the confidentiality of the information provided. Employees’ carelessness in handling information circulated via email may result in serious punitive action.
Which one of the following would best replace ‘stipulating’ while maintaining the meaning of the passage?
In the primary passage, the word ‘stipulate’ is used to express that the contracts prepared by employers impose an obligation upon employees to monitor their e-mails and prevent any leakage of sensitive information. In this context, the word ‘specify’ would have the same meaning as ‘stipulate’.
It is a unilateral obligation imposed by the employer, and this obligation is included in the contracts before those contracts are negotiated, agreed or signed by employees. This lack of input from the employees means that the words ‘agreeing’, ‘promising’ or ‘pledging’ do not accurately reflect the circumstances. This is because ‘agreeing’ suggests that the obligation was mutually agreed, whereas ‘promising’ or ‘pledging’ suggest that the impetus comes from the employees, not the employer.
Employees working within organisations have a legislative obligation to monitor the content of e-mails sent to external bodies and to eliminate potentially sensitive internal information regardless of the perceived importance of that information. To guarantee that employees fulfil their legislative obligation and to prevent the possible leak of exclusive information, employers have prepared mandatory contracts stipulating this responsibility, to be signed by all employees, and additionally, inserted a copyright section to every external e-mail that emphasises the confidentiality of the information provided. Employees’ carelessness in handling information circulated via email may result in serious punitive action.
Which one of the following provides the best summary of what employees must do, according to the primary passage?
The main task here is to clarify which option best expresses the essence of the passage. In this context, it is usually helpful to examine the first sentence of the passage, as well as any recurring themes that arise.
Employees working within organisations have a legislative obligation to monitor the content of e-mails sent to external bodies and to eliminate potentially sensitive internal information regardless of the perceived importance of that information. To guarantee that employees fulfil their legislative obligation and to prevent the possible leak of exclusive information, employers have prepared mandatory contracts stipulating this responsibility, to be signed by all employees, and additionally, inserted a copyright section to every external e-mail that emphasises the confidentiality of the information provided. Employees’ carelessness in handling information circulated via email may result in serious punitive action.
Which one of the following provides the best summary of the main point of the passage?
The primary passage doesn’t comment on whether employee discretion policies are valuable to organisations, so Statement A doesn’t provide a suitable summary. Although Statement A might seem like an obvious conclusion to draw, you must remember to base your answer only on the actual content explicitly contained within the primary passage.
The primary passage opens with the statement that ‘employees’ have a ‘legislative obligation’ to ‘monitor the content of emails’, which fully aligns with Statement B.
The primary passage explains that employers choose to reinforce the legislative obligation by requiring employees to sign related contracts, so Statement C might seem like an obvious conclusion to draw. However, the passage doesn’t comment on whether reinforcing the legislative obligations is actually necessary or even recommended; we’re simply told that this action is taken. You therefore can’t conclude – based only on the content explicitly contained within the primary passage - that these obligations ‘should’ be reinforced.