GMAT Section 3: Verbal Ability GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Dumps in PDF

Intuitively, intellectual skills and perceptual-motor skills seem very different because perceptual-motor skills appear more primitive. Ontogenetically, perceptual-motor skills develop before intellectual skills, or at least before most intellectual skills are manifested. Phylogenetically, creatures "high on the evolutionary ladder" are more obviously capable of intellectual skills than are creatures "lower down ".
Perceptual-motor skills also seem more closely tied to specific forms of expression. Being a chess player does not mean one can only play with pieces of a certain size, that one can only move pieces with one's right hand, and so on. By contrast, being a violinist means one can play an instrument whose size occupies a fairly narrow range and that one must play with a rather rigid assignment of functions to effectors (bowing with the right hand, and fingering with the left). The seeming narrowness of this perceptual-motor skill expression, contrasted with the seeming openness of intellectual skill expression, seems to follow from intellectual skills having symbolic outcomes and perceptual-motor skills having non-symbolic outcomes. Symbolic outcomes need not be realized in specific ways and can rely on abstract rules. Non-symbolic outcomes, by contrast, need more specific forms of realization and seem to depend on restricted associations between stimuli and response.
Another difference between intellectual and perceptual-motor skills is that the two kinds of skill seem to be represented in different parts of the brain. For example, structures homologous to the optic rectum, a nucleus located on the dorsal surface of the midbrain, have a common function in all vertebrates-coordinating visual, auditory, and somatosensory information relevant to the control of orienting movements of the eyes, ears, and head. Similarities in structure and function between these and other brain areas associated with perceptual- motor behavior suggest that mechanisms for control of perceptual-motor skills are both highly specialized and conserved across species. In contrast, what distinguishes the human brain from the brains of other species - even closely related ones - is the differential growth of brain regions most strongly associated with intellectual skills, such as the association areas of the cerebral cortex.

The contention that these areas serve intellectual functions is supported by a large body of clinical and experimental literature. Together, these diverse sources of information suggest that perceptual-motor and intellectual skills depend on distinct brain circuits.

The passage is chiefly concerned with

Intuitively, intellectual skills and perceptual-motor skills seem very different because perceptual-motor skills appear more primitive. Ontogenetically, perceptual-motor skills develop before intellectual skills, or at least before most intellectual skills are manifested. Phylogenetically, creatures "high on the evolutionary ladder" are more obviously capable of intellectual skills than are creatures "lower down ".
Perceptual-motor skills also seem more closely tied to specific forms of expression. Being a chess player does not mean one can only play with pieces of a certain size, that one can only move pieces with one's right hand, and so on. By contrast, being a violinist means one can play an instrument whose size occupies a fairly narrow range and that one must play with a rather rigid assignment of functions to effectors (bowing with the right hand, and fingering with the left). The seeming narrowness of this perceptual-motor skill expression, contrasted with the seeming openness of intellectual skill expression, seems to follow from intellectual skills having symbolic outcomes and perceptual-motor skills having non-symbolic outcomes. Symbolic outcomes need not be realized in specific ways and can rely on abstract rules. Non-symbolic outcomes, by contrast, need more specific forms of realization and seem to depend on restricted associations between stimuli and response.
Another difference between intellectual and perceptual-motor skills is that the two kinds of skill seem to be represented in different parts of the brain. For example, structures homologous to the optic tectum, a nucleus located on the dorsal surface of the midbrain, have a common function in all vertebrates-coordinating visual, auditory, and somatosensory information relevant to the control of orienting movements of the eyes, ears, and head. Similarities in structure and function between these and other brain areas associated with perceptual- motor behavior suggest that mechanisms for control of perceptual-motor skills are both highly specialized and conserved across species. In contrast, what distinguishes the human brain from the brains of other species - even closely related ones - is the differential growth of brain regions most strongly associated with intellectual skills, such as the association areas of the cerebral cortex.

The contention that these areas serve intellectual functions is supported by a large body of clinical and experimental literature. Together, these diverse sources of information suggest that perceptual-motor and intellectual skills depend on distinct brain circuits.

The author mentions the game of chess in paragraph two primarily in order to

Intuitively, intellectual skills and perceptual-motor skills seem very different because perceptual-motor skills appear more primitive. Ontogenetically, perceptual-motor skills develop before intellectual skills, or at least before most intellectual skills are manifested. Phylogenetically, creatures "high on the evolutionary ladder" are more obviously capable of intellectual skills than are creatures "lower down ".
Perceptual-motor skills also seem more closely tied to specific forms of expression. Being a chess player does not mean one can only play with pieces of a certain size, that one can only move pieces with one's right hand, and so on. By contrast, being a violinist means one can play an instrument whose size occupies a fairly narrow range and that one must play with a rather rigid assignment of functions to effectors (bowing with the right hand, and fingering with the left). The seeming narrowness of this perceptual-motor skill expression, contrasted with the seeming openness of intellectual skill expression, seems to follow from intellectual skills having symbolic outcomes and perceptual-motor skills having non-symbolic outcomes. Symbolic outcomes need not be realized in specific ways and can rely on abstract rules. Non-symbolic outcomes, by contrast, need more specific forms of realization and seem to depend on restricted associations between stimuli and response.
Another difference between intellectual and perceptual-motor skills is that the two kinds of skill seem to be represented in different parts of the brain. For example, structures homologous to the optic tectum, a nucleus located on the dorsal surface of the midbrain, have a common function in all vertebrates-coordinating visual, auditory, and somatosensory information relevant to the control of orienting movements of the eyes, ears, and head. Similarities in structure and function between these and other brain areas associated with perceptual- motor behavior suggest that mechanisms for control of perceptual-motor skills are both highly specialized and conserved across species. In contrast, what distinguishes the human brain from the brains of other species - even closely related ones - is the differential growth of brain regions most strongly associated with intellectual skills, such as the association areas of the cerebral cortex.

The contention that these areas serve intellectual functions is supported by a large body of clinical and experimental literature. Together, these diverse sources of information suggest that perceptual-motor and intellectual skills depend on distinct brain circuits.

It can be inferred from the passage that the optic tectum

Considerable debate exists in the self-perception literature over the impact of positively biased self-perceptions on social and psychological functioning. Positively based self-perceptions are those in which an individual has a more positive opinion of himself than objective indicators warrant. One view suggests that positive perceptual biases are characteristic of normal human thought across a variety of domains and correlate positively with good mental and psychological health. Certain researchers and clinicians have even proposed that by boosting self-concepts, symptoms of depression and levels of aggression may be reduced.

Investigators on the other side of the debate maintain that when most positive self-perceptions are compared to an objective criterion, they appear neither positively biased nor adaptive. In fact, Baumeister, Smart, and Boden suggest that positively biased self-concepts may have a ‘dark side’. They proposed that it is persons with very positive self-views who are prone to be aggressive. As a result, building up individuals' self-perceptions may serve only to increase levels of aggression rather than curb them.

According to Baumeister et al., not all individuals with positive self-perceptions are going to be interpersonally aggressive. Rather, individuals who are extremely positive in their perceptions of themselves and their functioning are proposed to be the most likely to become angry and potentially violent. The mechanism that triggers aggressive behavior by these individuals has been suggested to be negative social feedback that challenges their positive self-views. Such threats to positive self-esteem give rise to anger and hostility.

If negative social information is encountered that challenges established positive self-perceptions, Baumeister et al. propose that individuals must choose to either accept the feedback and lower their self-perceptions or reject the feedback to maintain their positive self-views. The chosen reaction then influences their subsequent affective states and behavioral expressions. By accepting the external appraisals and adjusting self-perceptions downward, dysphonic feelings and social withdrawal may result. Conversely, the rejection of the validity of the unfavorable feedback results in feelings of anger and resentment toward the source of the threat. Dodge and colleagues demonstrated that children who interpret social cues as threatening direct their anger and aggression at the peers who gave the negative evaluations. Anger stemming from the receipt of social criticism is a way to deny the legitimacy of the negative information. By directing hostile reactions toward the source of the negative feedback, the influx of disconfirming information may end. Unless individuals react against the self-esteem threat, they may be compelled to revise their self-concepts negatively, in line with the information provided. By discounting the negative social feedback, individuals can protect themselves from dysphoric feelings and maintain their positively biased self-perceptions, but they may be setting themselves up to become interpersonally aggressive.

Although positively biased self-perceptions may place individuals at risk for negative social feedback and subsequent increases in aggressive behavior, not all positive self-concepts are suggested to be harmful. The relationship between positive self-perceptions and aggression may depend on the degree of perceptual distortion (i.e., moderate vs. extreme distortion). Baumeister (1989) and Baumeister et al. (1996) proposed that an optimal range of moderate bias might exist within which mental health is encouraged. Maladjustment in psychological and social functioning is suggested to occur when the degree of bias of self-perceptions shifts from moderate to extreme levels. Extremely negative and positive perceptual bias would be related to different but equally harmful difficulties.

The primary purpose of this passage is to

Considerable debate exists in the self-perception literature over the impact of positively biased self-perceptions on social and psychological functioning. Positively based self-perceptions are those in which an individual has a more positive opinion of himself than objective indicators warrant. One view suggests that positive perceptual biases are characteristic of normal human thought across a variety of domains and correlate positively with good mental and psychological health. Certain researchers and clinicians have even proposed that by boosting self-concepts, symptoms of depression and levels of aggression may be reduced.

Investigators on the other side of the debate maintain that when most positive self-perceptions are compared to an objective criterion, they appear neither positively biased nor adaptive. In fact, Baumeister, Smart, and Boden suggest that positively biased self-concepts may have a ‘dark side’. They proposed that it is persons with very positive self-views who are prone to be aggressive. As a result, building up individuals' self-perceptions may serve only to increase levels of aggression rather than curb them.

According to Baumeister et al., not all individuals with positive self-perceptions are going to be interpersonally aggressive. Rather, individuals who are extremely positive in their perceptions of themselves and their functioning are proposed to be the most likely to become angry and potentially violent. The mechanism that triggers aggressive behavior by these individuals has been suggested to be negative social feedback that challenges their positive self-views. Such threats to positive self-esteem give rise to anger and hostility.

If negative social information is encountered that challenges established positive self-perceptions, Baumeister et al. propose that individuals must choose to either accept the feedback and lower their self-perceptions or reject the feedback to maintain their positive self-views. The chosen reaction then influences their subsequent affective states and behavioral expressions. By accepting the external appraisals and adjusting self-perceptions downward, dysphoric feelings and social withdrawal may result. Conversely, the rejection of the validity of the unfavorable feedback results in feelings of anger and resentment toward the source of the threat. Dodge and colleagues demonstrated that children who interpret social cues as threatening direct their anger and aggression at the peers who gave the negative evaluations. Anger stemming from the receipt of social criticism is a way to deny the legitimacy of the negative information. By directing hostile reactions toward the source of the negative feedback, the influx of disconfirming information may end. Unless individuals react against the self-esteem threat, they may be compelled to revise their self-concepts negatively, in line with the information provided. By discounting the negative social feedback, individuals can protect themselves from dysphoric feelings and maintain their positively biased self-perceptions, but they may be setting themselves up to become interpersonally aggressive.

Although positively biased self-perceptions may place individuals at risk for negative social feedback and subsequent increases in aggressive behavior, not all positive self-concepts are suggested to be harmful. The relationship between positive self-perceptions and aggression may depend on the degree of perceptual distortion (i.e., moderate vs. extreme distortion). Baumeister (1989) and Baumeister et al. (1996) proposed that an optimal range of moderate bias might exist within which mental health is encouraged. Maladjustment in psychological and social functioning is suggested to occur when the degree of bias of self-perceptions shifts from moderate to extreme levels. Extremely negative and positive perceptual bias would be related to different but equally harmful difficulties.

According to the passage, which of the following is mentioned as a factor in determining whether an individual with positively biased self-perception would actually be likely to perform an act of violence?