GMAT Section 3: Verbal Ability GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam Questions in PDF

Coca-Cola, which sold 10 billion cases of soft drinks in 1992, now finds itself asking, where will sales of the next 10 billion cases come from? The answer lies overseas, where income levels and appetites for Western products are at an all time high.

Often, the company that gets into a foreign market earliest dominates that country's market. Coke patriarch Robert Woodruff realized this and unleashed a brilliant ploy to make Coke the early bird in many of the major foreign markets. At the height of World War II, Woodruff proclaimed, “Wherever American boys were fighting, they'd be able to get a Coke.” By the time Pepsi tried to make its first international pitch in the 1950s, Coke had established its brand name along with a powerful distribution network.
During the last 40 years, many new markets have emerged. In order to tap into these opportunities, both coke and Pepsi have attempted to find ways to cut through the red tape that thwarts their efforts to conduct business in these new regions.

One key maneuver in the soda wars occurred in 1972, when Pepsi signed an agreement with the Soviet Union that made it the first Western product to be sold to consumers in Russia. This landmark agreement gave Pepsi the upper hand. At present, Pepsi has 23 plants in the former Soviet Union and is the leader in the soft-drink industry in Russia. It outsells Coca-Cola by a ratio of 6 to 1 and is seen there as a local brand, similar to Coke’s homegrown reputation in Japan. However, Pepsi has also encountered some obstacles. An expected increase in brand loyalty for Pepsi subsequent to its advertising blitz in Russia has not materialized; even though Pepsi produced commercials tailored to the Russian market and sponsored televised concerts.

Some analysts believe that Pepsi’s domination of the Russian market has more to do with pricing. While Pepsi sells for 250 Rubles (about 25 cents) a bottle, Coca-Cola sells for 450 Rubles. Likewise, Pepsi sells their 2 liter economy bottle for 1,300 Rubles, while Coca-Cola’s 1.5 liters is marketed at 1,800 rubles. On the other hand, Coca-Cola only made its first inroads into Russia 2 years ago. What's more, although Coca-Cola's bottle and label give it a high-class image, Russians do not perceive Coca-Cola as a premium brand in the Russian market. Consequently, it has so far been unable to capture a market share.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizen’s interests?

According to the passage, the 'cyber-utopians' mentioned in the passage would most likely be in favor of which of the following innovations?

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizen’s interests?

The passage supports which of the following statements about government regulation of the Internet?

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizen’s interests?

The author is primarily concerned with

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizen’s interests?

According to the passage, which of the following is considered by postmodern critics to be a threat to the notion of self?