MCAT (Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills )

0%

1. The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions! It is already a long story, yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we, at last, grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this "Will to Truth" in us? In fact, we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will—until at last, we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it, at last, seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.
2. "HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the in transitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—"frog perspectives," as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretense, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation, one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense of the term.
And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.
Which of the following definitions of Nietzsche's Will to Truth is the most accurate?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B)
The question is what this passage is centered around. Although the title of the book claims that the issues dealt with are concerning good and evil, it can be discerned that this is early on in the book, where the writer seeks to know why humans pursue truth

Which of the following statements best describes the concept "HOW COULD SOMETHING ORIGINATE FROM IT'S OPPOSITE?" It's impossible for such a genesis to occur.”

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (A)
This is a second-level question that requires using the text to apply to a novel situation. The author argues that truth, or good things, must have their own values that do not exist just because they are the opposite of evil things. That most closely correlates with answer B.

Who is the Sphinx that the writer is referring to in this passage?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (A)
The writer is sourcing this information from greek mythology, but that information is not necessary for the answer. The first time the Sphinx is brought up when it says “[we] turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves?”. This statement alone is enough for the answer, as it is a vague definition of a riddle. However, the Sphinx is referenced again in relation to the subject of the passage questioning why humans pursue truth, and states, “Was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx?”. This information absolutely narrows the answer down to something that references questions. Discerning between the Oedipus and the Sphinx is the final task, which can be done by examining the similarities between the two times the Sphinx is referenced.

What may be the next probable passage in the book after this?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B).
The author discusses the fact that truth has its own distinct characteristics that cannot be determined by looking at their opposite. He claims that they must have characteristics all their own that are intrinsic to their nature. It would be logical to think that he will in fact start to delineate these characteristics.

On arriving in Moscow by a morning train, Levin had put up at the house of his elder half-brother, Koznishev. After changing his clothes he went down to his brother’s study, intending to talk to him at once about the object of his visit, and to ask his advice; but his brother was not alone. With him there was a well-known professor of philosophy, who had come from Harkov expressly to clear up a difference that had arisen between them on a very important philosophical question. The professor was carrying on a hot crusade against materialists. Sergey Koznishev had been following this crusade with interest, and after reading the professor’s last article, he had written him a letter stating his objections. He accused the professor of making too great concessions to the materialists. And the professor had promptly appeared to argue the matter out. The point in discussion was the question then in vogue: Is there a line to be drawn between psychological and physiological phenomena in man? and if so, where? Sergey Ivanovitch met his brother with the smile of chilly friendliness he always had for everyone, and introducing him to the professor, went on with the conversation. A little man in spectacles, with a narrow forehead, tore himself from the discussion for an instant to greet Levin, and then went on talking without paying any further attention to him. Levin sat down to wait till the professor should go, but he soon began to get interested in the subject under discussion. Levin had come across the magazine articles about which they were disputing, and had read them, interested in them as a development of the first principles of science, familiar to him as a natural science student at the university. But he had never connected these scientific deductions as to the origin of man as an animal, as to reflex action, biology, and sociology, with those questions as to the meaning of life and death to himself, which had of late been more and more often in his mind. As he listened to his brother’s argument with the professor, he noticed that they connected these scientific questions with those spiritual problems, that at times they almost touched on the latter; but every time they were close upon what seemed to him the chief point, they promptly beat a hasty retreat, and plunged again into a sea of subtle distinctions, reservations, quotations, allusions, and appeals to authorities, and it was with difficulty that he understood what they were talking about. ‘I cannot admit it,’ said Sergey Ivanovitch, with his habitual clearness, precision of expression, and elegance of phrase. ‘I cannot in any case agree with Keiss that my whole conception of the external world has been derived from perceptions. The most fundamental idea, the idea of existence, has not been received by me through sensation; indeed, there is no special sense-organ for the transmission of such an idea.’ ‘Yes, but they—Wurt, and Knaust, and Pripasov—would answer that your consciousness of existence is derived from the conjunction of all your sensations, that that consciousness of existence is the result of your sensations. Wurt, indeed, says plainly that, assuming there are no sensations, it follows that there is no idea of existence.’ ‘I maintain the contrary,’ began Sergey Ivanovitch. But here it seemed to Levin that just as they were close upon the real point of the matter, they were again retreating, and he made up his mind to put a question to the professor. ‘According to that, if my senses are annihilated, if my body is dead, I can have no existence of any sort?’ he queried. The professor, in annoyance, and, as it were, mental suffering at the interruption, looked round at the strange inquirer, more like a bargeman than a philosopher, and turned his eyes upon Sergey Ivanovitch, as though to ask: What’s one to say to him? But Sergey Ivanovitch, who had been talking with far less heat and one-sidedness than the professor, and who had sufficient breadth of mind to answer the professor, and at the same time to comprehend the simple and natural point of view from which the question was put, smiled and said: ‘That question we have no right to answer as yet.’ ‘We have not the requisite data,’ chimed in the professor, and he went back to his argument. ‘No,’ he said; ‘I would point out the fact that if, as Pripasov directly asserts, perception is based on sensation, then we are bound to distinguish sharply between these two conceptions.’ Levin listened no more, and simply waited for the professor to go.
How would you describe Levin's personality?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (D)
There are several sections in the passage that would ascribe timidness to the character of Levin. It is clear that, after a short while, he is interested in the philosophical discussion that he only just now learns of. This would require at least some level of intelligence to comprehend. Additionally, he speaks of attending university and studying natural sciences. However, he is reserved in adding to the conversation, and one contested answer from the professor leads him to be silent the rest of the conversation. This would best associate with answer D.

What are the author's thoughts on the philosophers of his era?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (D)
Answer C is clearly wrong, as the author is attempting to answer questions himself. There is nothing to suggest that the author believes there are too few philosophers (A). Indeed, by reading the last sentence, it is very clear at least that the author is observing a new wave of philosophy. By elimination, that makes the correct answer D.

Which of the following professor character developments do you think is most likely to happen as the tale progresses?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B)
The passage touches on the professor’s arrogance at his description, saying he had to be torn away to greet Levin, and his annoyance at Levin’s albeit rudimentary interjection. He is also a devout follower of his sensory consciousness belief. It can be deduced from the passage that this professor is most likely profoundly disagreeable, and added to his intelligence is a sense of arrogance in his theories. This correlates best with answer B.

Sergey Levin, Levin's half-brother, is working with a philosophy professor on the real-world boundary between psychology and physiology. Which of the following statements would support the professor's point of view?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B)
The argument that these two characters are having concerns whether consciousness is the result of sensory input to the brain, or if it can be independent. The professor takes the position of the former. This would be supported by any evidence that the lack of consciousness that could exist if sensory input from the world is removed (answer B).

What is Levin's most likely profession, based on the passage?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (C)
Businessman is certainly an unlikely answer, as it is known that Levin studied natural science in college. He seems to be an adequate deep thinker, but denies knowledge of existentialist questions, thus eliminating answer choice B. A professor is the second most likely answer, as he could very well be a science teacher. However, the distance at which he speaks of his familiarity to science suggests he is removed from the profession for quite some time. Thus, this leaves answer choice D as the predominantly correct answer.

What is the best way to describe Sergey's relationship with his half-brother?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (A)
The most information for this answer can be gleaned from Levin’s interjection to the argument. The background that Levin is staying at Sergey’s house and borrowing his clothes certainly suggests that they are close. His non-patronizing manner in which he addresses his interjection, however, shows that they have an affectionate relationship that is based on respect for each other.

A HISTORY PASSAGE
In the late 18th century, citizens throughout rural Massachusetts shut down courthouses attempting to conduct debt collection hearings, farmers in western Pennsylvania and other parts of the western frontier refused to pay an excise on whiskey, and members of the Pennsylvania Dutch community in the east of the state harassed officials attempting to assess a direct tax on houses. In each case, the government's initial response to protests of "taxation without representation" led to an exacerbation of tensions: radicalized citizens banded together, creating armed militias in open rebellion against the ruling regime. These popular uprisings against taxation and economic hardship were not—as many Americans would now assume upon hearing such descriptions—revolts against the British monarchy in prelude to the American Revolution (1775–83). Rather, Shays' Rebellion (1786–87), the Whiskey Rebellion (1791–94), and Fries's Rebellion (1798–1800) occurred after the British had been vanquished. Though each episode has distinctive historical significance, it is particularly instructive to examine the evolving reaction to popular protest by the incipient United States government.
In the case of the uprisings throughout western and central Massachusetts that would come collectively to be known as "Shays' Rebellion," the federal government existed in a much attenuated form, enfeebled due to the considerable amount of sovereignty ceded to the thirteen original states under the Articles of Confederation. After subsistence farmers, veterans of the Continental Army, and other rural citizens found themselves hard-pressed in 1786 by debts incurred during hard times and taxes newly levied by the Massachusetts government, they began to revolt, at first just closing down courts but soon organizing armed militias, culminating in an attempt led by veteran Daniel Shays to seize a federal armory in Springfield. The federal government lacked the funds to assemble its own militia and counter the uprising, so it was left to the governor of Massachusetts, James Bowdoin, to handle—and he had to turn to assistance from more than a hundred wealthy merchants to bankroll mercenaries, who quashed the rebels.
The moneyed and propertied interests—creditors to whom many debts were owed—had been unnerved by the events in Massachusetts, and were instrumental in the creation and ratification of the new Constitution, which greatly concentrated power in a more robust central government. When many western farmers refused to pay a 1791 excise tax on whiskey, the newly empowered federal government was able to muster a formidable response after resistance grew more organized. In 1794, President Washington himself led a massive federalized militia of nearly 13,000 troops that would effortlessly scatter the resistance forces. The reaction by President Adams to the smaller rebellion led by John Fries years later would be similarly heavy-handed.
This tendency toward increased centralization of power has only worsened since the 18th century. As the federal government has accumulated strength, state and municipal governments—and, ultimately, the people—have lost their sovereignty. And while the moneyed had to foot the bill directly to protect their property (and continue collecting their rents) in quelling Shays' Rebellion, since the adoption of the new Constitution in 1789, the federal government has been able to make the people pay directly for their own repression—a fact recently highlighted in the assault, covertly orchestrated across several cities by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security, on the 2011 Occupy movement. In the end, the people have only traded one master for another: the feudal relic of British monarchy has been usurped by a modern bureaucratic behemoth, ultimately in thrall to the nouveau aristocracy of corporate "persons" and the rapacious class of executives that constitute the homunculi within.
"The federal government has been able to make the people directly pay for their own repression," the author states in paragraph 5. Based on the rest of the paragraph, this is most likely meant to convey the following:

Correct! Wrong!

Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
Read the quote from the question stem in context to get a sense of what to look for: "And while the moneyed had to foot the bill directly…in quelling Shays' Rebellion, since the adoption of the new Constitution in 1789, the federal government has been able to make the people pay directly for their own repression." The contrast with Shays' Rebellion is instructive, since the author notes in P3 that "®he federal government lacked the funds to assemble its own militia and counter the uprising," while this is not a problem in P4 with the federal response to the Whiskey Rebellion. The inference to be drawn is that the new government can levy taxes, which it can then use to respond to a popular uprising—even if that uprising is itself a reaction to the taxes levied, as was the case with the Whiskey Rebellion. The only answer that reflects this line of thinking is choice (D).
(B) Opposite. The author cites a recent example (the 2011 Occupy movement) of a kind of popular uprising immediately after raising this point, so this choice is contradicted by the passage.
(C) Out of Scope. While this offers a possible explanation, the passage never discusses anything of this sort.
(D) Out of Scope. No comparison is ever made between the kinds of consequences dissenters face today versus the 18th century, so this choice could not reflect the passage.

The author's position on "moneyed and proprietied interests" (paragraph 4) is best summarized as:

Correct! Wrong!

Correct Answer: D
Explanation:
While the language used to describe the "moneyed and propertied interests" tends to be relatively neutral in P4, the author's negative attitude towards the wealthy comes through in P5, particularly in the closing sentence, with the mention of a "rapacious class of executives." Thus, choice (D) is correct.
(A) Opposite. The author never says anything positive about the moneyed.
(B) Since the author says nothing to praise the wealthy but only uses negative language in describing them indicates that the author's attitude is not one of ambivalence (a mix of positive and negative feelings).
(C) While the author is relatively neutral in P4, the language used in P5 suggests that the author is far from indifferent.

In the first paragraph, the author most usually omits particular details of the events in order to:

Correct! Wrong!

Correct Answer: D
Explanation:
Though this is ostensibly a question about the first paragraph, properly answering it requires understanding how P1 connects to the rest of the passage. A key hint comes in the transition into P2: "These popular uprisings against taxation and economic hardship were not—as many Americans would now assume upon hearing such descriptions—revolts against the British monarchy . . ." The author has made the descriptions in P1 deliberately ambiguous in order to create an expectation (these tax protests are against unfair British taxes) that is almost immediately overturned (the protests are actually against taxes imposed by American authorities), which serves to highlight the fact that the American officials were acting just as unfairly as the British. This corresponds most closely to choice (D).
(A) Opposite. Plenty of details are provided in P3 and P4, so it's clear that the author does not generally lack knowledge about the subject.
(B) Opposite. This choice is contradicted by the discussion in P2, where the author notes that "each episode has distinctive historical significance, " going on to state how "particularly instructive" their contrast is.
(C) Though concise expression would be a reason to omit details, the primary thesis does not really emerge until later in the passage, particularly in the final paragraph.

According to some researchers, the US federal government did less to safeguard residents whose homes were taken away in false foreclosures during the 2007–2008 financial crisis than to defend the banks that engaged in this illegal action. What effect does this have on the passage if it's true?

Correct! Wrong!

Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
The situation described in the question stem seems to echo the idea from the last sentence, that the US federal government is "ultimately in thrall to the nouveau aristocracy of corporate 'persons' and the rapacious class of executives that constitute the homunculi within." This is an aspect of the author's central argument, that the people have been disempowered as more power has been accumulated in the federal government, and that this government represents the interests of the wealthy first and foremost. Thus, choice (A) is right.
(B) While the new situation makes it clear that the wealthy have influence in the 21st century, this in itself proves nothing about what happened in the 18th century, when the new Constitution was created and ratified (explained in P4).
(C) Opposite. As explained above, the author's argument is actually bolstered by the new information.
(D) Opposite. If anything, this claim would be strengthened, since the evidence in the question stem makes it clear that the people are not in charge.

In the second paragraph, the author makes which of the following assumptions?

Correct! Wrong!

Correct Answer: D
Explanation:
Be sure to stick to the discussion in P2, since the question stem specifically references it. There, the author suggests that "many Americans would now assume" that the rebellions described in P1 were against British authorities, when they were actually against American ones. In suggesting that many Americans will make that assumption, the author is actually assuming these individuals are unfamiliar with the events described, and would not be able to recognize them from the descriptions. This matches with choice (D).
(A) Out of Scope. There is no suggestion in the passage that the British played any role in these Rebellions. The British are merely raised as a point of comparison.
(B) Though there is the suggestion at the end of P4 that the reactions to the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries' Rebellion were both "heavy-handed, " this is not an assumption made in P2.
(C) Opposite. The author deliberately compares the American Revolution against the British monarchy to these rebellions against American

The Constitution concisely organizes the country’s basic political institutions. The main text comprises seven articles. Article I vests all legislative powers in the Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Great Compromise stipulated that representation in the House would be based on population, and each state is entitled to two senators. Members of the House serve terms of two years, senators terms of six. Among the powers delegated to Congress are the right to levy taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, provide for military forces, declare war, and determine member seating and rules of procedure. The House initiates impeachment proceedings, and the Senate adjudicates them.
Article II vests executive power in the office of the presidency of the United States. The president, selected by an electoral college to serve a four-year term, is given responsibilities common to chief executives, including serving as commander in chief of the armed forces, negotiating treaties (two-thirds of the Senate must concur), and granting pardons. The president’s vast appointment powers, which include members of the federal judiciary and the cabinet, are subject to the “advice and consent” (majority approval) of the Senate (Article II, Section 2). Originally presidents were eligible for continual reelection, but the Twenty-second Amendment (1951) later prohibited any person from being elected president more than twice. Although the formal powers of the president are constitutionally quite limited and vague in comparison with those of the Congress, a variety of historical and technological factors—such as the centralization of power in the executive branch during war and the advent of television—have increased the informal responsibilities of the office extensively to embrace other aspects of political leadership, including proposing legislation to Congress.
The federal government is obliged by many constitutional provisions to respect the individual citizen’s basic rights. Some civil liberties were specified in the original document, notably in the provisions guaranteeing the writ of habeas corpus and trial by jury in criminal cases (Article III, Section 2) and forbidding bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9). But the most significant limitations to government’s power over the individual were added in 1791 in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the rights of conscience, such as freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and the right of peaceful assembly and petition. Other guarantees in the Bill of Rights require fair procedures for persons accused of a crime—such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure, compulsory self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and excessive bail—and guarantees of a speedy and public trial by a local, impartial jury before an impartial judge and representation by counsel. Rights of private property are also guaranteed. Although the Bill of Rights is a is a broad expression of individual civil liberties, the ambiguous wording of many of its provisions—such as the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments”—has been a source of constitutional controversy and intense political debate. Further, the rights guaranteed are not absolute, and there has been considerable disagreement about the extent to which they limit governmental authority. The Bill of Rights originally protected citizens only from the national government. For example, although the Constitution prohibited the establishment of an official religion at the national level, the official state-supported religion of Massachusetts was Congregationalism until 1833. Thus, individual citizens had to look to state constitutions for protection of their rights against state governments.
During the early stages of the Afghan War, intelligence agencies used psychological techniques such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding on interrogated captives. Which section of the constitution, according to the report, would prevent this from happening to American citizens?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B)
This answer refers to the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The second amendment is the right to bear arms. Article III refers to the right to fair trial. Article I states that people cannot be tried for crimes committed against laws that were enacted after their crime (ex post facto).

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to defend individual rights, as stated in the text. Which of the following is NOT an example of a situation for which this statute aimed to provide individual liberties?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (A)
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments of the constitution, designed to ensure civil liberties. This allows for individuals to pursue their own goal in protection from the government. Answer C is the only statement that is not in concordance with this, as establishing a national religion would violate the individual expression of religion.

Which of the following was a likely basis for the creation of the 22nd Amendment?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (A)
The text states that the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms. This was done with forethought by the founding fathers that monarchies, such as Britain, were subject to tyranny due to the holding of power for successive generations by a leader. They sought to deny this from happening in the U.S.

One of the clauses of the first amendment that has come to be considered as a part of the law is that no one can yell "fire!" In a congested space. Why would they put this restriction in place?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (A)
Common adaptations to the Bill of Rights concern when a person taking their own individual liberties infringes on the liberties of others. For example, the right to pursue happiness would infringe on the right to property if someone believes taking others’ property would make them happy. Although fundamentalists are known as people who take every word of the Constitution literally, even they accept these adjustments. This does not only apply to the rights of children (answer B).

Why does the text declare the Bill of Rights to be "ambiguous?"

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (D)
The term ambiguous means lacking in precise definition. This is not in reference to what an individual is (answer B), but rather in what defines cruel and unusual punishment, and when the rights of one individual infringe on that of another. This correlates most closely with answer D.

Sauna use, sometimes referred to as "sauna bathing," is characterized by short-term passive exposure to extreme heat. This exposure elicits mild hyperthermia – an increase in the body's core temperature – that induces a thermoregulatory response involving neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, and cytoprotective mechanisms that work together to restore homeostasis and condition the body for future heat stressors… In recent decades, sauna bathing has emerged as a means to increase lifespan and improve overall health, based on compelling data from observational, interventional, and mechanistic studies. Of particular interest are the findings from studies of participants in the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor (KIHD) Study, an ongoing prospective population-based cohort study of health outcomes in more than 2,300 middle-aged men from eastern Finland, which identified strong links between sauna use and reduced death and disease… The KIHD findings showed that men who used the sauna two to three times per week were 27 percent less likely to die from cardiovascular-related causes than men who didn't use the sauna.[2] Furthermore, the benefits they experienced were found to be dose-dependent: Men who used the sauna roughly twice as often, about four to seven times per week, experienced roughly twice the benefits – and were 50 percent less likely to die from cardiovascular-related causes.[2] In addition, frequent sauna users were found to be 40 percent less likely to die from all causes of premature death. These findings held true even when considering age, activity levels, and lifestyle factors that might have influenced the men's health.[2]... The KIHD also revealed that frequent sauna use reduced the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer's disease in a dose-dependent manner. Men who used the sauna two to three times per week had a 66 percent lower risk of developing dementia and a 65 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, compared to men who used the sauna only one time per week… The health benefits associated with sauna use extended to other aspects of mental health, as well. Men participating in the KIHD study who used the sauna four to seven times per week were 77 percent less likely to develop psychotic disorders, regardless of the men's dietary habits, socioeconomic status, physical activity, and inflammatory status (as measured by C-reactive protein)…Exposure to high temperature stresses the body, eliciting a rapid, robust response. The skin and core body temperatures increase markedly, and sweating ensues. The skin heats first, rising to 40°C (104°F), and then changes in core body temperature occur, rising slowly from 37°C (98.6°F, or normal) to 38°C (100.4°F) and then rapidly increasing to 39°C (102.2°F)… Cardiac output, a measure of the amount of work the heart performs in response to the body's need for oxygen, increases by 60 to 70 percent, while the heart rate (the number of beats per minute) increases and the stroke volume (the amount of blood pumped) remains unchanged.[5] During this time, approximately 50 to 70 percent of the body's blood flow is redistributed from the core to the skin to facilitate sweating. The average person loses approximately 0.5 kg of sweat while sauna bathing.[11] Acute heat exposure also induces a transient increase in overall plasma volume to mitigate the decrease in core blood volume. This increase in plasma volume not only provides a reserve source of fluid for sweating, but it also acts like the water in a car's radiator, cooling the body to prevent rapid increases in core body temperature and promoting heat tolerance… Repeated sauna use acclimates the body to heat and optimizes the body's response to future exposures, likely due to a biological phenomenon known as hormesis, a compensatory defense response following exposure to a mild stressor that is disproportionate to the magnitude of the stressor. Hormesis triggers a vast array of protective mechanisms that not only repair cell damage but also provide protection from subsequent exposures to more devastating stressors… The physiological responses to sauna use are remarkably similar to those experienced during moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise. In fact, sauna use has been proposed as an alternative to exercise for people who are unable to engage in physical activity due to chronic disease or physical limitations.[13]
Which of the following is NOT an advantage of sauna use, according to the article?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B)
This question assesses retention of information of the passage. All of the above except for answer D are stated explicitly in the text as benefits of sauna use. Although it is very possible that decreased rate of erectile dysfunction is a benefit of sauna use, it is not explicitly stated.

Which of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with based on the article?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B)
Of the answer choices above, only answer choice B is sufficiently backed by statements in the article. In fact, the article ends by stating this in different terms. The closest other answer choice is A, but the weight loss in sauna use is primarily water-based and likely very transient. Salt restriction and skin conditions are not mentioned in the article.

The review research draws heavily on data from population studies in Finland, where sauna use is far higher than in most other nations. Which of the following is more feasible in Finland than elsewhere, based on the data?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (A)
This question requires a bit of elucidation from the text. It would be useful to summarize the benefits listed in the article, and compare them to the answer choices. In the study, Alzheimer and dementia rates decrease in proportion to sauna use. Thus, it would be a higher percentage that someone in their mid-eighties had the mental capacity to retain public office compared to other cities (answer choice A).

Which of the following paragraphs is most likely to follow this snippet in the article?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (B)
This question has several attractive answer choices, which is always difficult when a question requires reasoning beyond the text. In fact, answer A is an actual paragraph that follows the excerpt. Eskimo populations may be mentioned, but there is no reference to cold exposure, only heat. The study on rats could very well have been mentioned as well, but since all of the review was in reference to human populations, it is less likely than answer choice B.

What would be the most crucial thing for a person to do after using a sauna, according to the article?

Correct! Wrong!

Answer Explanation: (C)
This question, like question 3, sources on the information that water loss is primarily responsible for a lot of changes during sauna use. It states explicitly that 0.5kg of sweat are lost while bathing, which would be necessary to replace with filtered water. The decrease in temperature is not necessarily as important, and since sauna use can replace exercise, exercising after would not be necessary. Calories are absolutely burned during sauna use, but there is nothing in the text that suggests this would require a meal directly after use.

Related Post