Guide 7, Ch 4, page 65, problem set

[joyoftheheart]

Hi, I'm struggling to understand the problem set on this page. On the question 4, with A,B,C as answering options, I managed to choose answers diametrically opposite then what the book says is right. The book says C is correct, and I chose A and B as correct.

Please help me understand why was I so wrong.

A. They will misattribute... attraction... during a long lull in turbulence.

The passage states that many men aroused by walking on a high bridge, contacted the interviewer AFTERWARD. So the effect of being aroused by fear lasts after the moment of experiencing fear directly. Now, the text of the question 4. says: "...passengers of a particularly turbulent flight".

So, my logic: the flight is turbulent... men are aroused.... there opens a long gap where things are quiet, the lull. But the effect of arousal should still linger. Therefore, A should be a correct answer. Right?

B. "... a few days after the flight" - again the same issue, how long will the arousal linger? A few days? Why not? It lasted for an unspecified time after the interview. Or was it only just after the interview? Not clearly stated in the passage.

C. "viscerally disgusted". The text only says that unattractive people should be seen as less attractive... not actually "viscerally disgusting", a much stronger and quite different feeling. I thought C cannot be a correct answer because someone "merely unappealing" can not become "viscerally disgusting" but maybe "strongly unappealing".

Plus, notice that the arousal should linger on after the flight, into the luggage collecting area, which might take at least half an hour. So, "a long lull in turbulance", in the midst of "particularly turbulent flight" - can the arousal not linger throughout it, or at least for a first half hour of it? Again, making A the correct choice.

Thanks for any clarification!

[tommywallach]

Actually, the passage went out of its way to say, "who had just crossed," so we know they are answering IMMEDIATELY after the fear. No lull, no pause.

That's why just C.

-t

[joyoftheheart]

I see, thanks Mr Wallach.

This is for me a serious point right here, so I will try to elaborate in the hope I might get some further instruction from you.

The passage says:
"... male subjects... who had JUST crossed a precarious... bridge reacted to an attractive interviewer.... moreover, subjects contacted the interviewer AFTERWARD."

As I read the passage for the first time, I did notice that JUST, but then that AFTERWARD led me astray.

This was my mental imagery: they have just crossed the bridge, all pumped up. They were immediately fronted by an attractive girl who asked them questions. Then, each of them hovered around for a while, while the girl interviewed other men... then, after a while, they, one by one, approached the girl to talk some more, obviously still under the influence of their aroused bodily chemistry. The time gap is not specified, but it could easily have taken 10-15-30 minutes since, for each of them, their feet were last on the bridge.

Even now, after realizing the intent of the passage, I know I would easily make the same mistake.

This was supposed to be my mental imagery: some men were crossing a bridge one at a time. A girl confronted each, asked questions, then, as she said "that would be all, goodbye sir", they refused to leave her and instead immediately started talking back.

I am afraid that no matter how many hours I put into Verbal strategies, Vocabulary buildup etc, I would never get this point right. It's something in between words, something unspecified, and to get it right one must be a native speaker. I'm hopeless. Kinda.

Yet, is it not that the whole point of GRE, as I'm learning from MPREP books, is - do not add your own information, everything you need to know is written in the passage, you just need to scoop it out and use elementary logic on it.

Here I can mention the same effect from elsewhere..... Math related.

GRE Math is not a problem for me, and I went through the Math sections of the 5lb book with ease and gusto... except when occasionally I would hit the wall of not understanding the actual English verbiage.

Perfect example: 5lb book, Chapter 23, page 700, problem 3:
"A restaurant menu has several options for tacos. There are 3 types of shell, 4 types of meat, 3 types of cheese, and 5 types of salsa. How many distinct tacos can be ordered assuming that any order contains exactly one of each of the above choices?

My answer: 3+4+3+5=15. You see where the problem was? I assumed "exactly one of each of the above choices" disregards grouping into types. The intended solution is, of course 3*4*3*5=180. I would get that intent only if it was written like this: "exactly one of each type of the above choices".

I need some commentary on all this.... thanks for anything you can offer.