We need to find what the author would most probably support based on their overall argument and tone throughout the passage. Step-by-step process: First, we need to identify the author's main stance -> The author discusses problems with current peer review system and suggests solutions involving more openness. Next, we look for the author's clearest position statement -> The final line gives the strongest clue about what they support. From passage: "But the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary." This shows the author wants less secrecy (opacity) and more openness (transparency) as the default approach. The author also supports multiple transparency measures -> sharing data to find bias, catching fraud, and even some open reviews -> This suggests overall transparency, not just one specific type.

Elimination process: 🟠 Option 2 -> too-narrow -> Author mentions sharing data and reviews, not just data instead of reviews. This picks only one part of author's broader transparency vision. 🔴 Option 3 -> contradicts-main-argument -> Author acknowledges this concern but clearly argues against it. The whole passage pushes for more openness, not preserving anonymity. 🔴 Option 4 -> scope-error -> This screening idea isn't discussed in the passage. Author focuses on transparency issues, not recruiter screening problems. 🟢 Option 1 -> captures-full-scope -> "Greater transparency across the peer review process" matches the author's call to shift away from opacity in general. It covers all the transparency measures the author discusses. Key insight: The author wants transparency as the default approach rather than secrecy, which directly supports Option 1's broad transparency stance.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts