Test Prep NET - Nurse Entrance Test Exam
Page: 2 / 45
Total 222 questions
Question #6 (Topic: Reading Comprehension)
Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, priced-fixing in nonsocialist countries is often.
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, priced-fixing in nonsocialist countries is often.
A. accidental but productive
B. illegal but useful
C. legaland innovative
D. traditional and rigid
E. intentional and widespread.
Answer: E
Question #7 (Topic: Reading Comprehension)
Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, what is the result of the Soviet Union's change in economic policy in the 1970's?
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, what is the result of the Soviet Union's change in economic policy in the 1970's?
A. Soviet firms show greater profit.
B. Soviet firms have less control over the free market
C. Soviet firms are able to abject to technological advances.
D. Soviet firms have some authority to fix prices.
E. Soviet firms are more responsive to the free market.
Answer: D
Question #8 (Topic: Reading Comprehension)
Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
With which of the following statements regarding the behavior of large firms in industrialized societies would the author be most likely to agree.
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
With which of the following statements regarding the behavior of large firms in industrialized societies would the author be most likely to agree.
A. The directors of large firms will continue to anticipate the demand for products
B. The directors of large firms are less interested in achieving a predictable level of profit tan in achieving a large profit.
C. The directors of large firms will strive to reduce the costs of their products.
D. Many directors of large firms believe that the government should establish the prices that will be charged for products.
E. Many directors of large firms believe that the price charged for products is likely to increase annually.
Answer: A
Question #9 (Topic: Reading Comprehension)
Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires
a major act of will to think of price â€" fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal†and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing
is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that
requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of
consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly
recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the
other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the
common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number
of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not
considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly
efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in
adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free
market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
A. predicting the consequences of a practice
B. criticizing a point of view
C. calling attention to recent discoveries.
D. proposing a topic for research.
E. summarizing conflicting opinions.
Answer: B
Question #10 (Topic: Reading Comprehension)
The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant are among eh most exciting developments
in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics. In the life cycle of the star, after all
of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiations. Pressure and the stable gravitational force becomes
disturbed and slow contraction begins. As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms. If the initial star had mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times
the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes the white dwarf. However, if the star was originally
more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitations pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.
Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point the strong nuclear force resists further
contraction. If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more
massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces cannot resist the gravitational brunch. The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier
hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing. At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing
theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that
no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction â€" and the star would become black hole in space. This
gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics. When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and
infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight. This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental
paradox concerning atomic structure. At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognized
that if charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the
nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centered around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics. It may well be that an equivalent t advance
awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics. In the life cycle of the star, after all
of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiations. Pressure and the stable gravitational force becomes
disturbed and slow contraction begins. As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms. If the initial star had mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times
the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes the white dwarf. However, if the star was originally
more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitations pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.
Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point the strong nuclear force resists further
contraction. If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more
massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces cannot resist the gravitational brunch. The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier
hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing. At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing
theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that
no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction â€" and the star would become black hole in space. This
gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics. When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and
infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight. This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental
paradox concerning atomic structure. At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognized
that if charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the
nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centered around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics. It may well be that an equivalent t advance
awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. offer new explanations for the collapse of stars.
B. explain the origins of black holes, neutron stars, and white dwarfs.
C. compare the structure of atoms with the structure of the solar system.
D. explain how the collapse of stars challenges accepted theories of physics.
E. describe the imbalance between radiation pressure and gravitational force.
Answer: D
