In day-to-day functioning, people rely on both memory and knowledge of that memory, referred to as metamemory. For example, a person often cannot immediately recall a name upon meeting someone, but they feel that they know it. This feeling is the result of monitoring memory. Because of this feeling-of-knowing (FOK), most people will continue to search their memory for this name. Once a name is generated, people then monitor and decide if they are confident enough to use that name.

Memory monitoring involves evaluating the ongoing progress of any aspect of memory. Experiments that evaluate memory monitoring typically have individuals make subjective judgments about their memory at various stages of learning and recall. Participants are asked a series of questions. After each question that they answer, they are asked to provide a retrospective confidence (RC) judgment, rating the likelihood that their response is accurate. When participants do not answer a question, they are asked for their prospective FOK judgment, assessing whether they nonetheless feel they do know the answer (for example because they think they may be able to remember it at some point in the future).

Perhaps predictably, RC judgments are highly correlated with actual knowledge of a topic. FOK judgments, however, correlate rather weakly—albeit positively—with actual knowledge. While there are some instances where the FOK is the result of a momentary inability to recall something, more often than not the FOK stems from the sense that one should know something, for example because the field is familiar.

Research has resulted in a general consensus that, when monitoring memory, individuals infer whether a particular response will be, or has been, remembered based on the inputs that are readily available. However, the particular inputs used differ depending on when memory is assessed. Prospective FOK judgments are thought to be based on familiarity of the cue, accessibility of information about the memory, or a combination of the two. In contrast, it is widely accepted that RC judgments are based on the memory-retrieval experience—that is, the “on-line” experience of directly retrieving some previously studied item.

According to the passage, FOK judgments and RC judgments differ in all of the following ways EXCEPT that

In day-to-day functioning, people rely on both memory and knowledge of that memory, referred to as metamemory. For example, a person often cannot immediately recall a name upon meeting someone, but they feel that they know it. This feeling is the result of monitoring memory. Because of this feeling-of-knowing (FOK), most people will continue to search their memory for this name. Once a name is generated, people then monitor and decide if they are confident enough to use that name.

Memory monitoring involves evaluating the ongoing progress of any aspect of memory. Experiments that evaluate memory monitoring typically have individuals make subjective judgments about their memory at various stages of learning and recall. Participants are asked a series of questions. After each question that they answer, they are asked to provide a retrospective confidence (RC) judgment, rating the likelihood that their response is accurate. When participants do not answer a question, they are asked for their prospective FOK judgment, assessing whether they nonetheless feel they do know the answer (for example because they think they may be able to remember it at some point in the future).

Perhaps predictably, RC judgments are highly correlated with actual knowledge of a topic. FOK judgments, however, correlate rather weakly—albeit positively—with actual knowledge. While there are some instances where the FOK is the result of a momentary inability to recall something, more often than not the FOK stems from the sense that one should know something, for example because the field is familiar.

Research has resulted in a general consensus that, when monitoring memory, individuals infer whether a particular response will be, or has been, remembered based on the inputs that are readily available. However, the particular inputs used differ depending on when memory is assessed. Prospective FOK judgments are thought to be based on familiarity of the cue, accessibility of information about the memory, or a combination of the two. In contrast, it is widely accepted that RC judgments are based on the memory-retrieval experience—that is, the “on-line” experience of directly retrieving some previously studied item.

Which of the following, if true, would support the author's claims about the inputs associated with memory monitoring?

In day-to-day functioning, people rely on both memory and knowledge of that memory, referred to as metamemory. For example, a person often cannot immediately recall a name upon meeting someone, but they feel that they know it. This feeling is the result of monitoring memory. Because of this feeling-of-knowing (FOK), most people will continue to search their memory for this name. Once a name is generated, people then monitor and decide if they are confident enough to use that name.

Memory monitoring involves evaluating the ongoing progress of any aspect of memory. Experiments that evaluate memory monitoring typically have individuals make subjective judgments about their memory at various stages of learning and recall. Participants are asked a series of questions. After each question that they answer, they are asked to provide a retrospective confidence (RC) judgment, rating the likelihood that their response is accurate. When participants do not answer a question, they are asked for their prospective FOK judgment, assessing whether they nonetheless feel they do know the answer (for example because they think they may be able to remember it at some point in the future).

Perhaps predictably, RC judgments are highly correlated with actual knowledge of a topic. FOK judgments, however, correlate rather weakly—albeit positively—with actual knowledge. While there are some instances where the FOK is the result of a momentary inability to recall something, more often than not the FOK stems from the sense that one should know something, for example because the field is familiar.

Research has resulted in a general consensus that, when monitoring memory, individuals infer whether a particular response will be, or has been, remembered based on the inputs that are readily available. However, the particular inputs used differ depending on when memory is assessed. Prospective FOK judgments are thought to be based on familiarity of the cue, accessibility of information about the memory, or a combination of the two. In contrast, it is widely accepted that RC judgments are based on the memory-retrieval experience—that is, the “on-line” experience of directly retrieving some previously studied item.

Based on the information in the passage, in which of the following situations would a RC judgment occur?

In 2004, Jared Diamond published Collapse, a rigorous analysis of why certain ancient societies have perished. His groundbreaking study explored the environmental and historical factors that contributed to the demise of the “Viking colonies” of Greenland, the Polynesians of Easter Island, and the Anasazi of the American southwest. Diamond’s core thesis was that human recklessness and lack of foresight were the major factors in precipitating the ends of these societies. 

Diamond’s work was among the first to seek out the commonalities between deforestation in Easter Island and resource depletion in ancient Greenland. Because he posited that human agency played a key role in determining whether cultures disintegrate or thrive, his message was viewed by many prominent environmental activists as a call to action – societies can remain vibrant providing they make prudent decisions regarding resource management.

However, many critics have claimed that Diamond’s explanations for the extinctions of ancient societies were simplistic, and placed undue blame on the regions’ inhabitants. For example, Terry Hunt, an archaeologist at the University of Hawaii, has claimed that the Polynesian deforestation, which Diamond attributed to the recklessness of the native peoples, was actually caused by predatory rats. Moreover, Hunt has noted that Diamond overlooked the role that European disease played in decimating native populations. If these other factors are taken into account, the issue of blame becomes a far more complex one and some of Diamond’s positions may need to be reconsidered.

According to the passage, all of the following were used by Diamond or Hunt to support their positions EXCEPT:

In 2004, Jared Diamond published Collapse, a rigorous analysis of why certain ancient societies have perished. His groundbreaking study explored the environmental and historical factors that contributed to the demise of the “Viking colonies” of Greenland, the Polynesians of Easter Island, and the Anasazi of the American southwest. Diamond’s core thesis was that human recklessness and lack of foresight were the major factors in precipitating the ends of these societies. 

Diamond’s work was among the first to seek out the commonalities between deforestation in Easter Island and resource depletion in ancient Greenland. Because he posited that human agency played a key role in determining whether cultures disintegrate or thrive, his message was viewed by many prominent environmental activists as a call to action – societies can remain vibrant providing they make prudent decisions regarding resource management.

However, many critics have claimed that Diamond’s explanations for the extinctions of ancient societies were simplistic, and placed undue blame on the regions’ inhabitants. For example, Terry Hunt, an archaeologist at the University of Hawaii, has claimed that the Polynesian deforestation, which Diamond attributed to the recklessness of the native peoples, was actually caused by predatory rats. Moreover, Hunt has noted that Diamond overlooked the role that European disease played in decimating native populations. If these other factors are taken into account, the issue of blame becomes a far more complex one and some of Diamond’s positions may need to be reconsidered.

According to the passage, which of the following is used by Diamond as a piece of evidence for his core thesis?

Adapted from “Introductory Remarks” in The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud (trans. 1913)

In attempting to discuss the interpretation of dreams, I do not believe that I have overstepped the bounds of neuropathological interest. For, when investigated psychologically, the dream proves to be the first link in a chain of abnormal psychic structures whose other links—the hysterical phobia, the obsession, and the delusion—must interest the physician for practical reasons. The dream can lay no claim to a corresponding practical significance; however, its theoretical value is very great, and one who cannot explain the origin of the content of dreams will strive in vain to understand phobias, obsessive and delusional ideas, and likewise their therapeutic importance.

While this relationship makes our subject important, it is responsible also for the deficiencies in this work. The surfaces of fracture, which will be frequently discussed, correspond to many points of contact where the problem of dream formation informs more comprehensive problems of psychopathology which cannot be discussed here. These larger issues will be elaborated upon in the future.

Peculiarities in the material I have used to elucidate the interpretation of dreams have rendered this publication difficult. The work itself will demonstrate why all dreams related in scientific literature or collected by others had to remain useless for my purpose. In choosing my examples, I had to limit myself to considering my own dreams and those of my patients who were under psychoanalytic treatment. I was restrained from utilizing material derived from my patients' dreams by the fact that during their treatment, the dream processes were subjected to an undesirable complication—the intermixture of neurotic characters. On the other hand, in discussing my own dreams, I was obliged to expose more of the intimacies of my psychic life than I should like, more so than generally falls to the task of an author who is not a poet but an investigator of nature. This was painful, but unavoidable; I had to put up with the inevitable in order to demonstrate the truth of my psychological results at all. To be sure, I disguised some of my indiscretions through omissions and substitutions, though I feel that these detract from the value of the examples in which they appear. I can only express the hope that the reader of this work, putting himself in my difficult position, will show patience, and also that anyone inclined to take offense at any of the reported dreams will concede freedom of thought at least to the dream life.

The author could not rely upon the dreams related in scientific literature because __________.

Adapted from The Family Among the Australian Aborigines: a Sociological Study by Bronislaw Malinowski (1913)

It seems beyond doubt that in the aboriginal society the husband exercised almost complete authority over his wife; she was entirely in his hands and he might ill-treat her, provided he did not kill her. Out of our thirty statements, in six cases (Kurnai, Bangerang, Lower Murray tribes, according to Bonney, Geawe-Gal, Port Jackson tribes, North-west Central Queenslanders) the absolute authority of the husband is explicitly affirmed. We read in them either the bare statement that the husband had an absolute power over his family; or, in the better of them, we are more exactly informed that he had only to abstain from inflicting death on his wife. It was the latter's kinsman who would avenge her (Kurnai, Bangerang, North-west Central Queenslanders). It is difficult to ascertain in what form society would interfere with the husband if he transgressed the limits of his legal authority, i. e. killed his wife. Curr informs us that the woman's relatives would avenge her death. Howitt says that there would ensue a blood feud, which comes nearly to the same. It is very probable that the woman's kin retained some rights of protection. The remaining statements implicitly declare that the husband's authority was very extensive. (Encounter Bay tribes according to Meyer; New South Wales tribes according to Hodgson; Port Stephens tribes according to R. Dawson; Arunta; Herbert River tribes; Queenslanders according to Palmer; Moreton Bay tribes according to J. D. Lang; South-Western tribes according to Salvado; West Australians according to Grey.) It is clear that wherever we read of excessive harshness and bad treatment, wounds, blows inflicted on women, the husband must possess the authority to do it; in other words, he does not find any social barrier preventing him from ill-treatment. Especially as, in these statements, such ill-treatment is mentioned to be the rule and not an exception. In two statements we can gather no information on this point. According to the statement of J. Dawson on the West Victoria tribes, the husband's authority appears strictly limited by the potential intervention of the chief, who could even divorce the woman if she complained. But Curr warns us against Dawson's information concerning the chief and his power. Curr's arguments appear to be very conclusive. Too much weight cannot be attached, therefore, to Dawson's exceptional statement. Discarding it, we see that we have on this point fairly clear information. We may assume that society interfered but seldom with the husband, in fact, only in the extreme case of his killing his wife. Six statements are directly, and the remainder indirectly, in favor of this view, and the only one contradictory is not very trustworthy.

The author dismisses the argument by Dawson largely because __________.