Best GMAT Verbal Course 2026

The discussion on the medial temporal lobe is an important part of the author's explanation of the possible mechanisms behind déjà vu. The medial temporal lobe is a region of the brain that is involved in the formation and retrieval of memories. The author suggests that when the brain recognizes a familiar situation, such as a scene that is similar to one that has been previously encountered, the medial temporal lobe may be activated inappropriately, which leads to a feeling of familiarity even if there is no actual memory to support it. The author is using the example of the medial temporal lobe to illustrate one of the ways that the memory system can go slightly “off-kilter,” which is thought to be one of the underlying causes of déjà vu. By discussing the role of the medial temporal lobe in detecting familiarity, the author is highlighting the idea that the sensation of déjà vu may be related to the brain's attempts to make sense of ambiguous or conflicting information from different sources. Option C best captures the elements discussed above.

Option A: While it's true that the processing of temporal information has been proposed as a possible mechanism behind déjà vu, the mention of the medial temporal lobe in the passage is not intended to provide a “detailed” explanation of this idea. Instead, it is used to support the broader notion that déjà vu is related to memory processes.

Option B: Although the passage mentions how similar scenes can trigger déjà vu, it doesn't imply that this is due to different brain segments misinterpreting visual information. The passage suggests that the feeling of familiarity that characterizes déjà vu may arise when parts of the brain that recognize familiar situations get activated inappropriately, and the mention of the medial temporal lobe is used to support this idea.

Option D: While visual information may play a role in the occurrence of déjà vu, the passage doesn't emphasize it as the primary factor. Furthermore, there is no discussion on the recognition of “complex” situations.

Option E: The passage suggests that déjà vu may arise when the brain is unable to distinguish between a present experience and a similar past experience that was not fully encoded into long-term memory. In other words, the feeling of familiarity that characterizes déjà vu can arise even in the absence of actual memories, which is different from the ability to distinguish between present and past experiences that were fully encoded into long-term memory.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

[While research shows that a slight familiarity can result in déjà vu, it’s not clear that true familiarity is necessary to kick off the sensation.]

The function of the boldfaced line is to convey the idea that true familiarity may not be required for someone to experience déjà vu. The line suggests that even a slight sense of familiarity or similarity can trigger the feeling of déjà vu, and that the sensation may not necessarily correspond to a genuine memory. This idea is then discussed at length in the final paragraph. Option D comes closest to describing the function of the line.

The line does not necessarily provide an explanation or present a limitation of any kind; therefore, Options A, B and E are invalid. The line also does not emphasise the distinction between two “triggers” [unclear about the reference].

Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

[In a 2009 study, researchers found that viewing sneakily similar scenes was more likely to cause feelings of déjà vu than viewing dissimilar scenes—suggesting that perhaps there is some environmental trigger for the brain to call out, “Hey, I recognize that!” even when it’s never seen the scene before.]

Let us examine the choices individually:

Option A: The assertion here is not directly related to the study's findings on the relationship between viewing similar scenes and experiencing déjà vu. It focuses on a potential limitation in the study's scope, which is that it only measured the immediate effects of viewing similar scenes and did not investigate the long-term impacts of such exposure. While this limitation may be relevant to some research questions, it is not a criticism of the study's main finding.

Option B: This criticism suggests that individual variability may impact the results of the study, as what one person considers to be “sneakily similar” may not be the same as what another person considers to be similar. Therefore, it is possible that some participants in the study may have experienced déjà vu in response to scenes that other participants did not find similar enough to trigger that sensation. This potential variability in perception could undermine the validity of the study's conclusions.

Option C: This criticism is invalid because while prior research may have suggested that environmental triggers are associated with déjà vu, the specific finding of this study could be new and might add to the existing understanding of the phenomenon. The claim that subsequent research on “similar lines” is fruitless does not hold water.

Option D: While it is true that investigating brain chemistry and neural activity may be a valuable approach to understanding the causes of déjà vu, it is not a direct criticism of the 2009 study (the study aimed to investigate a specific hypothesis about the relationship between scene similarity and déjà vu, and it is not necessary for all studies on the topic to explore brain chemistry or neural activity).

Option E: The passage does not provide any information about the study sample's representativeness, so this criticism is not supported by the passage (nor is it relevant since the purpose was to explore a specific hypothesis and not map the occurrence of déjà vu in the general population).

Hence, Option B is the correct choice.

The scholars argue in the passage that the recently discovered manuscript is a lost work of Shakespeare. However, there is no direct evidence that Shakespeare wrote this particular play. To support this argument, the passage points out two pieces of evidence that some scholars use to argue for Shakespeare’s authorship: the manuscript’s stylistic similarities to Shakespeare’s other works and the presence of common themes in the manuscript.

We need to identify an assumption that is necessary for the argument to be valid. If the assumption were false, then the argument would be weakened or even invalid. In this regard, let us examine the given choices:

Option A: This assumption is not necessary for the argument. Even if the manuscript was a fake, scholars could still argue that it resembles Shakespeare’s style and themes.

Options B and D: Even if Shakespeare had destroyed all copies of the play or written many more plays than we know of, scholars could still argue that the newly discovered manuscript was a lost work.

Option C: This assumption is necessary for the argument. If the manuscript’s similarity to Shakespeare’s other works is not strong evidence that he wrote it, then the argument for the manuscript being a lost work of Shakespeare is weakened or invalid.

Option E: Even if the themes were common to other writers of Shakespeare’s era, scholars could still argue that the newly discovered manuscript was a lost work of Shakespeare based on its stylistic similarities to his other works.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

According to the given excerpt, the cost of owning a car is becoming more expensive due to several incidents of automobile accidents caused by distracted driving. This has led to an increase in auto insurance claims and payouts, which in turn, is causing insurance premiums paid by car owners to rise. [When insurance premiums rise, car owners have to pay more money to maintain their insurance coverage, which adds to the overall cost of owning a car]. In addition to this, the excerpt suggests that car manufacturers are under pressure to produce newer versions of cars that are safer and less prone to accidents. [This could potentially increase the cost of cars as well since car manufacturers may need to invest in new technology and safety features to make their cars safer.] We are expected to assess the given choices and identify the one that helps us support the conclusion that the “cost of owning a car will continue to increase.”

We note that Option C best supports this conclusion because it suggests that the cost of repairing newer cars is significantly higher than repairing older cars. This could impact the car maintenance cost, making car ownership relatively costly. Furthermore, insurance companies may have to pay higher amounts for repairs of newer cars, leading to a further increase in insurance premiums. This increase in insurance premiums could be passed onto car owners, resulting in higher ownership costs.

Option A is irrelevant to the given information as it talks about the cost of manufacturing cars over the past years, which need not be indicative of future price trends. Option B suggests that the demand for car ownership is decreasing, which may result in decreased ownership costs instead of increased costs - this is tangential to the question.

Option D is also irrelevant since it suggests that the demand for luxury cars is decreasing, which may or may not have an impact on the cost of owning a car. Option E mentions that stricter government regulations are being implemented to reduce emissions from cars, which may increase the cost of manufacturing cars. However, it does not directly support the conclusion that the cost of owning a car will continue to increase.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

The argument presented in the passage states that many people perceive fruits and vegetables to be expensive, and that this perception may be a barrier to consuming the recommended daily servings of these foods. However, the argument also notes that there are many affordable options for fruits and vegetables that can be incorporated into a healthy diet. Option E correctly identifies a vulnerability in the argument - namely, that the argument does not provide a direct comparison between the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables and the cost of processed foods on a per-serving basis. This comparison is important because it directly addresses the perception that healthy foods are more expensive than processed foods. Without this comparison, the argument may be seen as incomplete.

Option A: This is not relevant to the passage’s central claim. While it is true that some processed foods can have health benefits, this does not directly address the argument.

Option B: The argument does provide evidence for the claim that eating fruits and vegetables reduces the risk of chronic diseases - it mentions ‘studies’ that have shown this relationship, so the claim is adequately supported. Nevertheless, this option fails to address the core argument around perception and, thus, can be discarded.

Option C: While it is true that the availability and cost of healthy foods may vary across different regions and countries, this is not the primary concern of the argument.

Option D: This choice is not directly relevant to the argument. The passage does cite perception as one of the ‘factors’ [it implicitly acknowledges the presence of other factors]

Hence, Option E is the correct choice.

The coach is essentially saying that the athlete’s perception of the effectiveness of the training program may be flawed because it’s based on their individual experience, rather than an objective assessment of the program's effectiveness. This is most analogous to Option A, in which the teacher is saying that the student’s perception of the test’s difficulty may be flawed because it’s based on their individual experience, rather than an objective assessment of the test’s difficulty. In both cases, the coach and the teacher use objective evidence to challenge the subjective perception of the athlete and the student, respectively. The coach presents data that shows the effectiveness of the program, while the teacher cites the average grade of the class to demonstrate that the test was not too difficult.

Option B is not analogous to the coach’s response - the coach uses objective data to counter the athlete’s subjective perception, while the chef is using subjective data (i.e. other customers’ opinions) to counter the specific customer’s subjective perception. Similar reasoning can be used to reject Options C, D and E because they either involve rejecting a complaint based on qualifications (no perception involved), refuting a claim using the methodology, or challenging a belief using advice (subjective), which are not the same strategies employed by the coach in this scenario.

Hence, Option A is the correct choice.

The passage discusses the challenge of defining the concept of "culture," which encompasses various elements found in human societies. It also mentions the possibility that non-human animals may exhibit cultural behaviours, suggesting that the concept might be broader than previously thought. Additionally, the passage emphasizes the importance of considering the potential existence of different cultures on other planets. In this context, only Option B logically completes the passage. The analogy here in B implies that just as attempting to define all of music by studying a single melody would be inadequate, trying to define the entire concept of culture based solely on human societies would also be insufficient. Both culture and music are complex and diverse phenomena, requiring a broader perspective and consideration of various examples to gain a comprehensive understanding.

Situation: The passage states that the researchers have discovered a new species of plant in a remote part of the rainforest and want to study it to understand its ecology and potential medicinal properties better.

Complication: However, they are concerned that their activities could harm the species and the surrounding ecosystem.

Decision: Therefore, they are considering delaying their investigation to maximize the long-term potential for gaining knowledge about the plant and its habitat.

The line of investigation that would most help assess the validity of this conclusion is presented in Option C - because the discovery of a new species implies that the species is not well-known, its conservation status may be unknown. If the species is endangered or threatened, delaying the investigation may be a high-risk strategy, as the species could become extinct before the researchers can study it. Additionally, if the species is rare or has a small population, delaying the investigation may also be risky, as the species could be at risk of being wiped out by natural or human-induced events. Therefore, Option C affects the conclusion by pointing out the need to consider the risk of extinction of the new species before delaying the investigation. If the species is at risk of extinction, then the researchers may need to prioritize studying it before it becomes extinct to understand how to protect it and its habitat. By doing so, the researchers may be able to maximize the long-term potential for gaining knowledge about the plant and its habitat while minimizing the risk of causing harm to the species and its ecosystem.

Option A: Although it is important to consider competition or crossbreeding with other plant species, it is not as urgent a concern as the risk of extinction. Furthermore, this question would be more relevant if the researchers were planning to introduce the new species into a different environment, rather than studying it in its natural habitat.

Option B: This question is also not as relevant to the researchers’ plan as option C. Collaborating with local indigenous communities who have traditional knowledge about the area could be important for promoting cultural understanding and respect, but it does not address the immediate concern of the risk of extinction.

Option D: While this question is important to consider in the long-term study of the new species, it is not as relevant to the immediate concern of the risk of extinction. Predators or diseases that could pose a threat to the new species can be studied and managed after the species has been studied and understood more thoroughly.

Option E: Although new technologies may improve the researchers’ ability to study the new species, it is not relevant to the stated plan. Additionally, relying on future technologies to study the species may result in the species becoming extinct before any useful information can be gathered.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.