UCAT Verbal Reasoning Test #6
Epistolary novels rose to fame in England in the eighteenth century, but the genre was outmoded by the year 1800. In response to social change, their popularity increased. After around 1700, a large number of upper class women attained a high degree of reading and had more free time than their foremothers. Visits, letters filled with news from friends and family, reading, and stitching kept the time occupied. Naturally, two of these passions fueled the development of this literary subgenre.
Epistolary novels, which are typically written in the form of letters, may also contain diary entries. By mimicking actual events, authors can convey a sense of reality. Without relying on all-knowing, constantly present narrators, letters helped create story, shift viewpoints, and highlight characteristics of character. The most common sort of polylogic books had simultaneous contributions from three or more "writers." This made it possible to apply the technique of "discrepant awareness," in which the reader and some characters are aware of facts that have not yet been revealed to others.
The typical subject matter of epistolary books in the eighteenth century was romance, which exposed the genre to severe mockery. Loss of popularity was consequently caused by altered leisure habits, derision, a more pragmatic outlook, and a desire for a more narrative approach. Despite this, the epistolary book was nonetheless popular in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and it seems to be making a comeback again.
One advantage of the novel's epistolary form was that authors could:
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The possibility the style provided for creating a sense of realism and storyline is highlighted in paragraph two. According to paragraph two, "discrepant awareness" refers to the fact that not all characters were aware of events, allowing authors to avoid using an omniscient narrative voice. According to paragraph three, the rise of a more logical mindset was one of the factors contributing to the drop in popularity.
According to a 1999 study, children under the age of two should not watch any screen entertainment at all since it may harm their developing brains. The attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which now affects 5% of American youngsters, was the subject of a more recent investigation. Although there is a hereditary component to ADHD, the study found that children who watched TV between the ages of 1 and 3 had a noticeably higher chance of issues by the age of 7. There was a 9% increase in attention issues for every hour of TV watched.
The pace and editing rates of all programs, not least those expressly targeted at children, have changed as a result of the amazing technological advancements accessible to editors and producers in modern television. Through quick editing and presentational effects, these strategies are utilized to grab kids' attention and keep it on the show. In contrast to the public sector, the outcome is more obvious in commercial television. According to researchers, this may cause kids to have shorter attention spans later in life and may be linked to the development of ADHD. Recent studies have linked young children's television viewing to the apparent rise in autism, which makes it extremely difficult for the affected youngster to develop typical social relationships.
The "couch potato" attitudes and rising obesity rates in youngsters are not just the results of inactivity, despite the fact that they are clear effects of television. There is evidence that when television viewing increases, the resting metabolic rate decreases. However, more seriously, watching television increases appetite in both adults and children—and 75% of dinners are consumed in front of a television.
Watching films and DVDs can harm a child's brain before the age of two.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
Children under the age of two should never watch screen entertainment since it can negatively impact their developing brains, according to the first statement of the chapter.
According to a 1999 study, children under the age of two should not watch any screen entertainment at all since it may harm their developing brains. The attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which now affects 5% of American youngsters, was the subject of a more recent investigation. Although there is a hereditary component to ADHD, the study found that children who watched TV between the ages of 1 and 3 had a noticeably higher chance of issues by the age of 7. There was a 9% increase in attention issues for every hour of TV watched.
The pace and editing rates of all programs, not least those expressly targeted at children, have changed as a result of the amazing technological advancements accessible to editors and producers in modern television. Through quick editing and presentational effects, these strategies are utilized to grab kids' attention and keep it on the show. In contrast to the public sector, the outcome is more obvious in commercial television. According to researchers, this may cause kids to have shorter attention spans later in life and may be linked to the development of ADHD. Recent studies have linked young children's television viewing to the apparent rise in autism, which makes it extremely difficult for the affected youngster to develop typical social relationships.
The "couch potato" attitudes and rising obesity rates in youngsters are not just the results of inactivity, despite the fact that they are clear effects of television. There is evidence that when television viewing increases, the resting metabolic rate decreases. However, more seriously, watching television increases appetite in both adults and children—and 75% of dinners are consumed in front of a television.
In order to protect the health of young viewers, public television programs are created.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
Although it is mentioned that commercial television benefits more from modern production and editing methods than does public television, the sentence does not make clear the producer's objectives. Only the outcome is discussed; they may or may not develop TV shows with the viewers' children's health in mind.
According to a 1999 study, children under the age of two should not watch any screen entertainment at all since it may harm their developing brains. The attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which now affects 5% of American youngsters, was the subject of a more recent investigation. Although there is a hereditary component to ADHD, the study found that children who watched TV between the ages of 1 and 3 had a noticeably higher chance of issues by the age of 7. There was a 9% increase in attention issues for every hour of TV watched.
The pace and editing rates of all programs, not least those expressly targeted at children, have changed as a result of the amazing technological advancements accessible to editors and producers in modern television. Through quick editing and presentational effects, these strategies are utilized to grab kids' attention and keep it on the show. In contrast to the public sector, the outcome is more obvious in commercial television. According to researchers, this may cause kids to have shorter attention spans later in life and may be linked to the development of ADHD. Recent studies have linked young children's television viewing to the apparent rise in autism, which makes it extremely difficult for the affected youngster to develop typical social relationships.
The "couch potato" attitudes and rising obesity rates in youngsters are not just the results of inactivity, despite the fact that they are clear effects of television. There is evidence that when television viewing increases, the resting metabolic rate decreases. However, more seriously, watching television increases appetite in both adults and children—and 75% of dinners are consumed in front of a television.
Compared to ordinary kids, children with autism watch more television.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
We do not know whether children with autism watch more television than typical children, despite some fairly recent study linking autism and television usage. Since we are not informed of the specifics of how the study "implicates television consumption," the right response is "can't tell."
A basket of carefully chosen foods might cost £50 in the UK, but you would need to exchange your British pounds into US dollars in order to buy the same items in a store in the US.
People swap some of their home currency for foreign currency in order to save money in another nation, like Australia, or to purchase items from that nation. To receive a higher return than they would in the UK, some opt to store their money in other nations. Such savings would include borrowing from a bank and lending to it by a UK citizen.
However, the cost of purchasing and selling currencies fluctuates more than the cost of purchasing groceries. Using a single currency, as is the case in the eurozone, allows countries to avoid the uncertainty associated with purchasing or selling goods to or from other nations using various currencies. As a result, the euro was launched in 1999, and by 2013, it had been adopted by 17 nations that had previously used 17 different currencies with independent exchange rates.
There are no exchange rate problems if a person from France purchases goods from a company in Spain or travels to Italy for vacation because everyone is utilizing the euro. In contrast, if exchange rates change, my UK pounds might buy fewer euros (pound devalues), making a trip to Portugal more expensive, or more euros might be available for my pounds (pound revalues), making it significantly less expensive. If demand and supply for the euro are out of balance, problems will occur for the eurozone (as well as for each individual country) since rising exchange rates result from excess demand and falling exchange rates from excess supply.
A nation's exchange rate may be negatively impacted if it imports a lot of raw materials from outside, such as chemicals and oil, in order to create products.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The UK will need more foreign currency as it imports more oil and chemicals, which will increase the supply of pounds on the foreign exchange markets unless there is an increase in demand from abroad for UK pounds.
According to a 1999 study, children under the age of two should not watch any screen entertainment at all since it may harm their developing brains. The attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which now affects 5% of American youngsters, was the subject of a more recent investigation. Although there is a hereditary component to ADHD, the study found that children who watched TV between the ages of 1 and 3 had a noticeably higher chance of issues by the age of 7. There was a 9% increase in attention issues for every hour of TV watched.
The pace and editing rates of all programs, not least those expressly targeted at children, have changed as a result of the amazing technological advancements accessible to editors and producers in modern television. Through quick editing and presentational effects, these strategies are utilized to grab kids' attention and keep it on the show. In contrast to the public sector, the outcome is more obvious in commercial television. According to researchers, this may cause kids to have shorter attention spans later in life and may be linked to the development of ADHD. Recent studies have linked young children's television viewing to the apparent rise in autism, which makes it extremely difficult for the affected youngster to develop typical social relationships.
The "couch potato" attitudes and rising obesity rates in youngsters are not just the results of inactivity, despite the fact that they are clear effects of television. There is evidence that when television viewing increases, the resting metabolic rate decreases. However, more seriously, watching television increases appetite in both adults and children—and 75% of dinners are consumed in front of a television.
Children's attention spans are improved by fast-paced, engaging television.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
According to the second paragraph, children have a reduced attention span as a result of fast-paced programming.
A basket of carefully chosen foods might cost £50 in the UK, but you would need to exchange your British pounds into US dollars in order to buy the same items in a store in the US.
People swap some of their home currency for foreign currency in order to save money in another nation, like Australia, or to purchase items from that nation. To receive a higher return than they would in the UK, some opt to store their money in other nations. Such savings would include borrowing from a bank and lending to it by a UK citizen.
However, the cost of purchasing and selling currencies fluctuates more than the cost of purchasing groceries. Using a single currency, as is the case in the eurozone, allows countries to avoid the uncertainty associated with purchasing or selling goods to or from other nations using various currencies. As a result, the euro was launched in 1999, and by 2013, it had been adopted by 17 nations that had previously used 17 different currencies with independent exchange rates.
There are no exchange rate problems if a person from France purchases goods from a company in Spain or travels to Italy for vacation because everyone is utilizing the euro. In contrast, if exchange rates change, my UK pounds might buy fewer euros (pound devalues), making a trip to Portugal more expensive, or more euros might be available for my pounds (pound revalues), making it significantly less expensive. If demand and supply for the euro are out of balance, problems will occur for the eurozone (as well as for each individual country) since rising exchange rates result from excess demand and falling exchange rates from excess supply.
The money is theoretically being lent by the bank when a saver makes a deposit in a bank.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
When a customer deposits money in a bank, the bank is actually borrowing the funds rather than lending them.
A basket of carefully chosen foods might cost £50 in the UK, but you would need to exchange your British pounds into US dollars in order to buy the same items in a store in the US.
People swap some of their home currency for foreign currency in order to save money in another nation, like Australia, or to purchase items from that nation. To receive a higher return than they would in the UK, some opt to store their money in other nations. Such savings would include borrowing from a bank and lending to it by a UK citizen.
However, the cost of purchasing and selling currencies fluctuates more than the cost of purchasing groceries. Using a single currency, as is the case in the eurozone, allows countries to avoid the uncertainty associated with purchasing or selling goods to or from other nations using various currencies. As a result, the euro was launched in 1999, and by 2013, it had been adopted by 17 nations that had previously used 17 different currencies with independent exchange rates.
There are no exchange rate problems if a person from France purchases goods from a company in Spain or travels to Italy for vacation because everyone is utilizing the euro. In contrast, if exchange rates change, my UK pounds might buy fewer euros (pound devalues), making a trip to Portugal more expensive, or more euros might be available for my pounds (pound revalues), making it significantly less expensive. If demand and supply for the euro are out of balance, problems will occur for the eurozone (as well as for each individual country) since rising exchange rates result from excess demand and falling exchange rates from excess supply.
A travel agency that arranges rail journeys throughout Asia promises not to raise fees after a reservation has been made. A 10% deposit is required at the time of booking, and the remaining 90% must be paid in Russian roubles one week prior to the start of the vacation. This indicates that there is no chance the vacation will cost the traveler more than he or she anticipated.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
This contradicts the claim that "there is no chance the vacation will cost the traveler more than he or she expects to pay." If the traveler does not already have Russian roubles and the value of the rouble increases, there is a chance that the trip will be more expensive than planned since the traveler will need to convert more cash into roubles. Travelers without Russian roubles would only be impacted by this, but it does indicate that there is a chance that the trip would cost more than anticipated.
A basket of carefully chosen foods might cost £50 in the UK, but you would need to exchange your British pounds into US dollars in order to buy the same items in a store in the US.
People swap some of their home currency for foreign currency in order to save money in another nation, like Australia, or to purchase items from that nation. To receive a higher return than they would in the UK, some opt to store their money in other nations. Such savings would include borrowing from a bank and lending to it by a UK citizen.
However, the cost of purchasing and selling currencies fluctuates more than the cost of purchasing groceries. Using a single currency, as is the case in the eurozone, allows countries to avoid the uncertainty associated with purchasing or selling goods to or from other nations using various currencies. As a result, the euro was launched in 1999, and by 2013, it had been adopted by 17 nations that had previously used 17 different currencies with independent exchange rates.
There are no exchange rate problems if a person from France purchases goods from a company in Spain or travels to Italy for vacation because everyone is utilizing the euro. In contrast, if exchange rates change, my UK pounds might buy fewer euros (pound devalues), making a trip to Portugal more expensive, or more euros might be available for my pounds (pound revalues), making it significantly less expensive. If demand and supply for the euro are out of balance, problems will occur for the eurozone (as well as for each individual country) since rising exchange rates result from excess demand and falling exchange rates from excess supply.
The total supply of a nation's currency will increase if it is able to import £100 million worth of raw materials and then export an additional £200 million worth of goods to other nations.
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The countries it is exporting goods to will need to purchase £200 million worth of pounds in order to pay for the goods, so the demand for pounds as a whole will increase rather than the supply. The importing country would have to sell £100 million worth of pounds in order to purchase other currencies.
The West End of London is renowned for its theaters, but this was not always the case. All theatrical productions were outlawed between 1642 and 1660 due to their immorality, corruption, and subversion. Drama was once again made legal in England in 1660, but just two London theaters and acting companies were allowed. Royal funding led to severe controls on performance and content, and critical commentary was prohibited. Upper class audiences could attend the theater.
Royal sponsorship was replaced by business interests in the 1690s, and government influence shrank. Owners desired a more socially diversified clientele in order to enhance earnings. Up until the late 1730s, a lot of playwrights attacked the monarchy and government. The government tightened controls and imposed censorship as performances became more critical and vocal. Following the reading of the provocative play The Golden Rump in parliament, which offensively criticized King George's personal habits, the 1737 Licensing Act was passed.
All plays were edited by the Lord Chamberlain's office two weeks prior to their performances, and they could only be given a license if everything that was offensive was removed. Authors and actors who disobeyed this law were subject to severe penalties and jail. This limitation on their ability to criticize politicians infuriated many authors.
Local theaters might be approved by magistrates after 1788. While several additional theaters were constructed in the provinces, London was still only allowed two theaters. Country gentry now have access to cultural experiences that are not available to many Londoners. The lack of plays due to censorship led to new sarcastic techniques being developed by government critics and new entertainment forms being created by London theater managers to draw spectators. In 1968, censorship came to an end.
Which of these claims best substantiates the statement that, in terms of drama, "rural nobility could now enjoy culture not available to many Londoners"?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The last sentence, which claims that there was no longer a restriction on having theaters only in London, supports it.
The West End of London is renowned for its theaters, but this was not always the case. All theatrical productions were outlawed between 1642 and 1660 due to their immorality, corruption, and subversion. Drama was once again made legal in England in 1660, but just two London theaters and acting companies were allowed. Royal funding led to severe controls on performance and content, and critical commentary was prohibited. Upper class audiences could attend the theater.
Royal sponsorship was replaced by business interests in the 1690s, and government influence shrank. Owners desired a more socially diversified clientele in order to enhance earnings. Up until the late 1730s, a lot of playwrights attacked the monarchy and government. The government tightened controls and imposed censorship as performances became more critical and vocal. Following the reading of the provocative play The Golden Rump in parliament, which offensively criticized King George's personal habits, the 1737 Licensing Act was passed.
All plays were edited by the Lord Chamberlain's office two weeks prior to their performances, and they could only be given a license if everything that was offensive was removed. Authors and actors who disobeyed this law were subject to severe penalties and jail. This limitation on their ability to criticize politicians infuriated many authors.
Local theaters might be approved by magistrates after 1788. While several additional theaters were constructed in the provinces, London was still only allowed two theaters. Country gentry now have access to cultural experiences that are not available to many Londoners. The lack of plays due to censorship led to new sarcastic techniques being developed by government critics and new entertainment forms being created by London theater managers to draw spectators. In 1968, censorship came to an end.
The primary target market for theater managers in the eighteenth century was:
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
Owners desired more racially diverse audiences in order to maximize revenues, according to the second statement in paragraph 2. Specifically, not the elite or a wide spectrum of people.