The correct answers are E and F.

In this sentence, the conjunction “and” links two positive attributes of the trip, the first of which is that the trip was accomplished with “very little incident.” The second attribute is noteworthy, too, so you're looking for a positive word, and there are several in the answer choices. That means you need to look for a keyword in the sentence to guide you. The trip is described as being over “difficult terrain,” so you need a word that characterizes overcoming obstacles like this. Choice (A) success is plausible, but you could just as accurately ascribe success to a trip that was brief and easy. It's not an ideal answer, but hold on to it for now. (B) renown is redundant with“noteworthy,” and it doesn't describe how the expedition was completed. Choice (C)results is too general. Again, “results” could apply to an expedition with no obstacles.Choice (D) accolades is incorrect. It is similar in meaning to renown, but it doesn't describe how the difficult expedition was completed. Choice (E) alacrity means“swiftness.” It would be noteworthy if an especially challenging expedition were completed quickly. Let's hold on to this answer. Choice (F) swiftness is a synonym of alacrity. Therefore, choices (E) and (F) fit well in the sentence and give it the same meaning, and you can eliminate choice (A).

The correct answers are A and E.

The phrase “in order to” suggests that the sentence presents a problem and a solution; thus, the divers must adopt an attitude that they believe justifies their actions.If the divers feel the need for self justification,then it follows that they feel defensive because they believe that other people think they are selfish in removing the artifacts.By claiming to care about preservation and research rather than themselves, the divers attempt to defend their questionable actions.

This line of reasoning allows us to predict that a correct answer will mean something similar to “unselfish.” Choices (A) altruistic and (E) selfless are correct because they are both synonyms of “unselfish.”

Adopting an omnipotent, or an all powerful,attitude would not help the divers appear unselfish nor would adopting an insular, or narrow minded,attitude. Therefore,answer choices (B) omnipotent and (C) insular are incorrect. Attempting to appear arrogant, or overconfident, is unlikely to help the divers justify their actions; thus,answer choice (D) arrogant can be eliminated. Answer choice (F) perfunctory, which means “indifferent” or “routine,” can be eliminated because appearing indifferent would also not help the divers justify removing artifacts from shipwrecks. Only (A) and(E) are correct.

tractable / recalcitrant are correct.

First we scan the sentence for clues about which blank will be easiest to fill in. The contrast/detour road sign “but” alerts us that something in the second half of the sentence will contradict something in the first, and given there is more context for the second blank, we’ll start with that one. The phrase “to the point where two men could not shift it” suggests the mule becomes “hard to move.” Since recalcitrant means“resistant” or “not obedient,” it is the best match to our prediction. Amenable, or“cooperative,” is the opposite of a mule “two men could not shift,” so it is incorrect.Intrusive, which means “invasive” or “pushy,” does not make sense in context as there is nothing for the mule to invade, so it is incorrect.

Given the detour suggested by “but,” the mule’s initial behavior must be described by an adjective that is nearly opposite to “recalcitrant.” That’s choice tractable, a word that means “easily led.” While affable, or “friendly,” might describe the mule’s demeanor, this sentence is concerned with the mule’s willingness to move, and affable does not contrast with “recalcitrant,” so it is incorrect. Inscrutable means “hard to understand,” which does not make sense in context.

psychological / fundamental are correct.

The first part of this sentence mentions that “training must take into account both body and mind,” and the second part is introduced by “therefore,” showing a “cause and effect” relationship. A trainer focusing on “physiological aspects” is then mentioned; since “physiological” means “the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes,” and is therefore analogous to “body,” the word that goes into the first blank must be analogous to “mind.” The second blank should contain a word describing what kind of mistake it would be to neglect the mental aspect of training.

obloquy is correct.

If the council prefers modesty, then fits of "hubris" or excessive arrogance would be criticized. "criticize" is the prediction and obloquy, matches. Encomium and panegyric, are opposite wrong answer choices. Perspicacity and pastiche fail to fit at all: perspicacity is astuteness, while a pastiche is a piece of artwork that consciously borrows from other pieces.

Because the answer choices contain difficult vocabulary, try using word charge. In this case you are looking for a negative charge. See if any of the answer choices might have a positive word charge. All of the wrong answers, except pastiche, have a positive charge. Eliminate them, and increase your odds of getting the correct answer.

platitudinous / impracticable / abandon are correct.

The sentence tells us that the honor code is "virtually useless," so we should keep that idea in mind when looking for the correct answer. The first blank will be a word that would describe something that is just common sense, and the second blank should describe the effect that "loopholes in punitive guidelines" would have on discipline. The third blank will tell us what the dean would do with the current honor code after creating a new one.

The correct answer is E.

The conclusion the author makes is that chess hobbyists should not be discouraged by the great success of a Russian master. The evidence is that even this man was once an uninitiated beginner, and that time spent practicing the basics is the most important factor in improving one’s game. So the point is that knowing and practicing is what made this master’s game superb, and such practice can make your game superb, relatively speaking. The author, then, is making the point in (E), that practicing the basics is what will improve your chess game.

(A) is out because while the great masters had to start as beginners, we can’t be sure that they began playing chess as a hobby. Perhaps they considered it as serious training for a later occupation. (B) says that no matter how much you practice, you’ll never be as good as Krupnik, the master. Well, there is no hint of pessimism in the argument. (C) reverses the argument, and (B) implies that enough practice guarantees skills as good as those of Krupnik. Again, no such claim is made. And (D) completely contradicts the author’s point. The author considers practice the most important factor, not luck.

The correct answer is A.

A procedure is acceptable if it is not forbidden by law and is suited to a specified purpose.

This questions asks us to find which answer choice(s) are consistent with the concept of legal-rational authority. The concept of "legal-rational authority" is defined in the sentence. The emphasis is on specificity and intentionality in establishing rules or procedures. Choice (A), which describes a pragmatic approach much like that ascribed to the Ibo in the passage, isn't a direct illustration of "legal-rational authority," but it is consistent with the concept, as required by the question. Therefore, (A) is correct.

Choices (B) and (C), however, embody the idea of the constancy of tradition; this is closer to the conception of "traditional authority," and inconsistent with the idea of "legal-rational authority." Thus, only choice (A) is correct.

The correct answer is C.

This argument concludes that different brain disorders can be identified by their effects on mental functioning. The only evidence offered in support of this claim is the fact that engine troubles can be identified based on an auto’s performance. In order for the evidence about cars to support the conclusion about brains, the author must assume that the two cases are analogous, and that what is true of the one is also true of the other. (C) points out the author’s reliance an analogy so it’s correct.

Since there’s no source provided for the author’s information, choice (A) won’t help us. Only mechanics could be considered a source, and when it comes to engine problems, they aren’t questionable. Choice (B) is out as well – no proponent exists. The author doesn’t assume any piece of his conclusion, so the reasoning isn’t circular as (D) says. Finally, although mechanics are authorities on car problems, the real focus of the argument is brain disorders, and no authority on these is mentioned or appealed to. The appeal is an analogy, (C).