Question 1

Verbal analogy — find the best synonym pair. Given pair: UMBRAGE : OFFENSE

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Umbrage means offense or resentment. The relationship is synonymy. We need another pair where both words are near-synonyms, matching the stem's equivalence. Given Data / Assumptions: umbrage ≈ offense, resentment. Look for emotional terms that map equivalently. Concept / Approach: Identify pairs with strong semantic overlap. Discard antonyms, wordplay, or mere association without sameness of meaning. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recognize the stem as synonyms.2) elation : jubilance — both are high joy; strong synonymy.3) Confirm other options are mismatches. Verification / Alternative check: Substitute “equals” between the words: “Elation equals jubilance” is broadly acceptable, like “Umbrage equals offense.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: confusion : penance — unrelated (state vs atonement). infinity : meaning — abstract magnitude vs significance; not synonyms. decorum : decoration — behavior standard vs ornament; not same. outrage : consideration — near opposites in tone and intent. Common Pitfalls: Choosing words with surface similarity (like decorum/decoration) rather than true meaning equivalence. Final Answer: elation : jubilance

Question 2

Verbal analogy — match an item to the occasion where it is typically used. Given pair: DIRGE : FUNERAL

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A dirge is a mournful song commonly performed at a funeral. The relationship is “thing used in” or “music appropriate to” an event. We must pick a similar usage-context pair. Given Data / Assumptions: dirge → funeral context. We want an audio or content element that is standard for a specific setting. Concept / Approach: Find a pair where the first is typically created for and used in the second scenario, as a hallmark element of that setting. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify context link: dirge is used at funerals.2) jingle : commercial — jingles are short tunes written for advertisements; used during commercials.3) This mirrors the purpose-to-occasion pattern. Verification / Alternative check: Read as “A jingle is for a commercial,” which fits the same grammatical structure as “A dirge is for a funeral.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: chain : letter — misordered phrase, not an occasion; “chain letter” is a noun phrase. bell : church — bells may be at churches but not unique to a specific event. telephone : call — instrument vs act; not event-specific content. hymn : concerto — hymn is a song of praise; concerto is a genre, not an occasion. Common Pitfalls: Confusing location or instrument with a dedicated content piece intended for a particular event or purpose. Final Answer: jingle : commercial

Question 3

Verbal analogy — select the best synonym pair. Given pair: DOMINANCE : HEGEMONY

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Dominance and hegemony both convey control or leadership, especially one entity's predominance over others. The task is to find another strong synonym pair. Given Data / Assumptions: dominance ≈ hegemony (rule, ascendancy). We need two words with parallel meaning strength. Concept / Approach: Search for a pair that is essentially definitional equivalence rather than loose association. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify stem as near-synonyms.2) independence : autonomy — both mean self-governance or freedom from control.3) Select this as the best mirror of synonymy. Verification / Alternative check: Replace colon with “equals”: “Independence equals autonomy” mirrors “Dominance equals hegemony.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: romance : sympathy — different feelings; not synonyms. furtherance : melancholy — progress vs sadness; unrelated. tolerance : philanthropy — acceptance vs charity; not equivalent. recompense : hilarity — payment vs laughter; unrelated. Common Pitfalls: Choosing pairs that merely coexist thematically; analogies require tight semantic alignment. Final Answer: independence : autonomy

Question 4

Verbal analogy — identify the closest synonym pair. Given pair: PHOBIC : FEARFUL

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Phobic means excessively fearful. The target is a pair that reflects synonymy as closely as the stem does. Given Data / Assumptions: phobic ≈ fearful, afraid. We need an equivalently strong synonym pairing. Concept / Approach: Check each option for near-identity of meaning and eliminate weak associations or antonyms. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Confirm stem is synonyms.2) asinine : silly — asinine means extremely foolish; silly is foolish. Strong synonymy.3) Select option with tightest meaning overlap. Verification / Alternative check: Try substitution: “Asinine equals silly” works naturally, like “Phobic equals fearful.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: finicky : thoughtful — meticulous vs reflective; not synonyms. cautious : emotional — careful vs affect-driven; unrelated. envious : desiring — desire is neutral; envy is resentful; not equivalent. shy : familiar — near antonyms in social comfort. Common Pitfalls: Accepting “somewhat related” pairs rather than clear synonym pairs. Precision matters in analogy mapping. Final Answer: asinine : silly

Question 5

Verbal analogy — identify the antonym relationship. Given pair: FERAL : TAME

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Feral is the opposite of tame. The stem pair shows an antonym relationship. We must find another clear pair of opposites. Given Data / Assumptions: feral = wild; tame = domesticated. Look for direct, widely accepted antonyms. Concept / Approach: Eliminate synonyms or unrelated adjectives. Choose the pair with direct contradiction in meaning. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify antonymy in the stem.2) ephemeral : immortal — short-lived vs living forever; clear opposites.3) Confirm others are not antonyms. Verification / Alternative check: Check dictionary sense: ephemeral (lasting a short time), immortal (endless life). This is a textbook antonym pair like feral vs tame. Why Other Options Are Wrong: rancid : rational — decayed vs reasonable; unrelated. repetitive : recurrent — both mean occurring again; synonyms. nettlesome : annoying — synonyms, not opposites. repentant : honorable — not antonyms; one is remorseful, the other is virtuous. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking weak contrast for true opposition; pick clearly incompatible meanings. Final Answer: ephemeral : immortal

Question 6

Verbal analogy — find the pair that parallels the relationship. Given pair: METAPHOR : SYMBOL

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy focuses on conceptual equivalence. A metaphor is a figure of speech that makes an implicit comparison; it functions as a type of symbolic representation in language. We want a pair with a comparable near-equivalence in everyday usage. Given Data / Assumptions: metaphor relates to symbol as a kind of representational comparison. We seek a pair where the first term is essentially the same concept as the second when rephrased in standard English. Concept / Approach: Prefer pairs that are definitional near-matches rather than container-content (like poem/meter) or loosely associated features. Analogy : comparison is a widely accepted definitional equivalence in common usage (an analogy is a comparison for explanation). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Parse the stem: a metaphor stands in for or symbolizes something via implied comparison.2) Examine options for near-definitional equivalence.3) Select analogy : comparison because an analogy is, by definition, a comparison drawn to show similarity.4) Reject options that show part–whole or property relationships instead of equivalence. Verification / Alternative check: Replace colon with “is essentially a”: “An analogy is essentially a comparison.” This mirrors “A metaphor is essentially a symbolic comparison.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: pentameter : poem — meter is a structural feature of some poems (part–whole, not equivalence). rhythm : melody — related musical elements, but not definitional identity. nuance : song — nuance is subtle distinction; not equivalent to song. slang : usage — slang is a type of usage but not a one-to-one equivalence like analogy/comparison. Common Pitfalls: Confusing associated components with definitional sameness. The best analogies mirror the type of relationship precisely (equivalence vs association). Final Answer: analogy : comparison

Question 7

Analogy (degree of intensity): INTEREST is to OBSESSION as which pair shows the same increase in intensity?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This verbal analogy tests the ability to recognize a graded relationship in which the second word represents a stronger, more extreme form of the first. Moving from interest to obsession reflects an escalation in intensity within the same domain (attention/engagement). We must select the option that mirrors this precise kind of strengthening. Given Data / Assumptions: Base pair: interest → obsession (mild or moderate attention → extreme, consuming focus). Required: another pair where the second term is a heightened, more intense form of the first in the same semantic field. Distractors may be loosely related pairs or category/type relationships that lack the degree escalation. Concept / Approach: Identify whether each option shows a clear increase of intensity, not just association or category membership. We are looking for “X is a milder form; Y is the intensified form of X.” Pairs that are synonyms, opposites, or different parts of speech without a graded path should be discarded. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare the base pair: interest → obsession (intensity rises).Evaluate “mood : feeling” — overlapping categories, not an intensity step.Evaluate “weeping : sadness” — effect versus cause; order is reversed and not intensity from the same base state.Evaluate “dream : fantasy” — fantasy is commonly used to denote a more extravagant, less constrained form of imagining than an ordinary dream; this fits an escalation pattern.Discard “plan : negation” and “highlight : indication” — do not reflect graded intensity. Verification / Alternative check: Read aloud: interest is to obsession as dream is to fantasy — both show increasing intensity/imaginative engagement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: mood : feeling — near-synonymous categories; neither intensifies the other.weeping : sadness — weeping is an expression of sadness, not a stronger form of it; also reversed direction.plan : negation — unrelated logical concepts.highlight : indication — both are acts of pointing out, not a graded pair. Common Pitfalls: Confusing any related pair with the specific “more intense form of the same thing” pattern. Always confirm the second term amplifies the first within the same domain. Final Answer: dream : fantasy

Question 8

Analogy (leader to group led): CONDUCTOR is to ORCHESTRA as which pair shows the same relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy assesses recognition of a role-to-group relationship. A conductor is the leader/director of an orchestra. We must find the option where the first word is the person who commands, directs, or leads the second word, which is a team or collective body. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: conductor → orchestra (leader → group). Correct option must match role and direction (person who leads → group that is led). Pairs involving person-to-object or tool-to-material are not analogous. Concept / Approach: Filter choices by asking: Is the second term a collective of people? Does the first term formally command or direct that collective? If yes to both, it mirrors the original relationship. Step-by-Step Solution: “jockey : mount” — jockey rides an individual animal, not a group; incorrect structure.“thrasher : hay” — tool-to-material; wrong domain.“driver : tractor” — operator-to-machine; not a group.“skipper : crew” — skipper (captain) leads a crew aboard a vessel; matches leader-to-group.“painter : house” — worker-to-object worked on; not a group. Verification / Alternative check: Leader → group: conductor → orchestra :: skipper → crew. Both are formal leadership roles over a collective. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They involve individuals with animals, tools with materials, or workers with objects rather than a leader with a team. Common Pitfalls: Selecting any pair with a professional title without checking that the second term is a team under that leader. Final Answer: skipper : crew

Question 9

Analogy (part to whole, specific term): FROND is to PALM as which pair shows the same relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy focuses on a part-to-whole biological relationship. A frond is the characteristic leaf of a palm (and ferns). We must pick the pair where the first word is a distinctive anatomical part of the organism named second. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: frond → palm (distinctive leaf → plant). Correct option: specific body part → animal that characteristically has that part. Pairs that are inaccurate biologically or that invert the relationship should be rejected. Concept / Approach: Check biological correctness and specificity. “Quill : porcupine” fits as quills are the famous spines of a porcupine. Other options name either the wrong organism or a part that does not belong to that organism. Step-by-Step Solution: Confirm base: frond belongs to a palm.Assess “quill : porcupine” — correct, iconic body part.“blade : evergreen” — evergreens typically have needles or scales, not grass-like blades.“scale : wallaby” — wallabies are mammals with fur, not scales.“tusk : alligator” — alligators have teeth, not mammalian tusks.“blade : fern” — while “blade” can name a leaf’s flat part, “fern” characteristically has fronds; less precise than the porcupine example. Verification / Alternative check: Both “frond : palm” and “quill : porcupine” evoke hallmark parts of the whole organism; the mapping is parallel. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either mismatch the anatomy to the organism or are less characteristic/precise than the correct choice. Common Pitfalls: Accepting any plausible-sounding biology without verifying whether that organism actually has the named part. Final Answer: quill : porcupine

Question 10

Analogy (neutral sense to negative/harsh variant): SOUND is to CACOPHONY as which pair matches this relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The analogy concerns moving from a neutral sensory noun to a specifically unpleasant or harsh manifestation. “Cacophony” is a harsh, jarring mixture of sounds. We seek a pair that likewise goes from a neutral sensory term to a distinctly negative form of that sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Sensory base: sound → cacophony (neutral sense → unpleasant version). Correct answer should be a neutral sense word paired with a negative, aversive manifestation of that same sense. Concept / Approach: Match sense to sense, and ensure the second term is a negative quality within that same sensory domain. Among the options, “smell : stench” clearly parallels “sound : cacophony.” Step-by-Step Solution: Identify pattern: sense (neutral) → negative manifestation.Evaluate options: “taste : style” (not sensory quality), “touch : massage” (positive/neutral act, not negative), “smell : stench” (negative smell), “sight : panorama” (broad view, not negative), “speech : oration” (formal style, not negative).Select “smell : stench.” Verification / Alternative check: Both “cacophony” and “stench” are strongly negative sensory experiences; domains align (hearing vs. smell). Why Other Options Are Wrong: They do not present a negative form within the same sense or they shift domains from sense to action/style. Common Pitfalls: Choosing any well-known pairing without testing for negativity within the same sensory domain. Final Answer: smell : stench

Question 11

Analogy (dwelling of an animal): AERIE is to EAGLE as which pair mirrors the relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An “aerie” is the elevated nest or dwelling of an eagle. Thus, the relationship is dwelling-to-occupant. The correct option must present a commonplace dwelling matched with its typical occupant, not a workplace or administrative seat unless it cleanly mirrors the same occupant relationship. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: aerie → eagle (dwelling → occupant species). Required: everyday dwelling → everyday occupant. Concept / Approach: Reject pairs that are workplace-to-professional, design-to-designer, or container-to-contained but at the wrong abstraction level. The simplest faithful parallel is “house : person.” Step-by-Step Solution: “capital : government” — seat of government, not the dwelling of an individual organism.“bridge : architect” — architect designs bridges; not a dwelling relationship.“unit : apartment” — inverted container-content; also mismatched levels.“kennel : veterinarian” — a kennel is for dogs; a vet works at a clinic, not in a kennel.“house : person” — humans dwell in houses; mirrors aerie:eagle. Verification / Alternative check: Substitute: aerie is the home of an eagle; a house is the home of a person. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They describe institutions, professional relationships, or mismatched container-content structures rather than a dwelling-to-occupant mapping. Common Pitfalls: Overthinking abstract “seat” meanings (e.g., capital) instead of choosing the straightforward dwelling parallel. Final Answer: house : person

Question 12

Analogy (role to characteristic trait): PROFESSOR is to ERUDITE as which pair matches this relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy checks whether you can link a role or archetype with a fitting trait commonly associated with it. While not every professor is erudite, the association is prototypical: professors are expected to be learned. We need a similar archetype-to-apt-trait pairing. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: professor → erudite (role → characteristic attribute). Correct option: role → trait that plausibly and positively typifies that role. Eliminate pairs that are unrelated, negative/incompatible, or merely licensing/status facts rather than traits. Concept / Approach: “Inventor : imaginative” fits: creativity is an expected trait of inventors. Licensure (“aviator : licensed”) is a credential, not a personality/ability trait. Other options either mismatch or express negative/irrelevant characteristics. Step-by-Step Solution: Check semantic type: trait vs. credential/status.Select “inventor : imaginative” — aligns as role → apt trait.Discard “procrastinator : conscientious” — contradictory; “overseer : wealthy” — not intrinsic; “moderator : vicious” — opposite of expected temperament. Verification / Alternative check: professor:erudite :: inventor:imaginative — both second terms describe valued intellectual qualities associated with the role. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They denote licenses, socioeconomic status, or clashing traits, not a core positive attribute of the role. Common Pitfalls: Confusing credentials or external conditions with inherent/valued personal traits. Final Answer: inventor : imaginative

Question 13

Analogy (class membership): DELTOID is to MUSCLE as which pair shows the same type-to-class relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The analogy asks you to recognize a specific member of a biological class and match it with its correct category. The deltoid is a particular muscle. We need another “specific anatomical structure : its class” pairing. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: deltoid → muscle (specific named muscle → class “muscle”). Correct option: a specific named structure → correct anatomical class. Reject pairs that are part-to-part, instrument-to-action, or mismatched levels. Concept / Approach: “Radius : bone” fits because the radius is the lateral forearm bone, a specific example of the class “bone.” Other options mix tissues and organs or confuse tools with outcomes, which breaks the class-membership relationship. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify taxonomy: deltoid ∈ muscles.Evaluate “radius : bone” — correct taxonomy: radius ∈ bones.Reject “brain : nerve” — brain is an organ; nerve is a different structure type.Reject “tissue : organ” — wrong order/levels.Reject “blood : vein” — substance vs. vessel; not a member-class relation.Reject “scalpel : incision” — instrument vs. result; not anatomy taxonomy. Verification / Alternative check: Both correct pairs name a single, specific anatomical example and its proper class. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They cross categories (organ vs. nerve), invert levels (tissue vs. organ), or shift to tool-result relations. Common Pitfalls: Choosing any biological words without confirming proper taxonomic containment. Final Answer: radius : bone

Question 14

Analogy (condition associated with organ): JAUNDICE is to LIVER as which pair shows the same association?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Jaundice is a condition typically associated with liver dysfunction (e.g., bile pigment accumulation). The task is to select a pair where the first term is a medical condition commonly associated with the organ named second. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: jaundice → liver (condition ↔ organ association). Correct: condition ↔ organ where it manifests. Exclude treatments, causes, symbols, or abstract processes. Concept / Approach: Among the options, “rash : skin” is a classic condition-to-organ pairing: a rash manifests on the skin. Dialysis is a treatment, not a condition; the others are non-medical or environmental/figurative associations. Step-by-Step Solution: Condition-organ check: jaundice relates to the liver; rash relates to the skin.“dialysis : kidney” — therapy to support kidney function; not a condition.“smog : lung” — environmental pollutant affecting lungs; not a condition itself.“valentine : heart” — symbolic association, not medical.“imagination : brain” — cognitive process, not a disease/condition. Verification / Alternative check: Both correct pairs align as condition → principal site/organ. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They represent treatments, causes, or metaphors rather than medical conditions tied to a specific organ. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking any organ-related word (e.g., therapy) for a condition; confirm the first term names an ailment/sign. Final Answer: rash : skin

Question 15

Analogy (legal cause → consequence): CONVICTION is to INCARCERATION as which pair best mirrors this cause-and-effect sequence?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The original pair expresses a legal cause-and-effect: a conviction (guilty finding) commonly leads to incarceration (imprisonment). We must choose another pair that preserves the same procedural progression within the justice system. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: conviction → incarceration (finding of guilt → confinement). Correct: earlier legal stage/event → its typical immediate consequence. Incorrect choices will invert stages, jump unrelated steps, or pair concepts that are not sequentially linked. Concept / Approach: After a verdict (particularly a guilty verdict), the next major step is sentencing. This mirrors conviction leading to incarceration. Other options either contradict the flow (accusation followed by acquittal is not a standard direct step) or mix non-sequential/legally mismatched events. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify legal sequence: charge → trial → verdict/conviction → sentencing → incarceration (in custodial cases).Match option “verdict : sentencing” — directly sequential; mirrors the base relationship.Eliminate “accusation : acquittal” — accusation does not directly result in acquittal; many steps intervene.Eliminate “appeal : indictment” — reversed/grab-bag of disparate stages.Eliminate “parole : arraignment” — parole occurs late; arraignment early; not causal.Eliminate “citation : testimony” — not a standard cause-effect pair. Verification / Alternative check: Both “conviction → incarceration” and “verdict → sentencing” articulate standard forward-moving steps in criminal procedure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either oppose the timeline, are not immediate consequents, or mix civil/criminal concepts incoherently. Common Pitfalls: Choosing legally themed words without checking procedural order and causality. Final Answer: verdict : sentencing

Question 16

Analogy (antonyms/opposites): DEPENDABLE is to CAPRICIOUS as which pair shows a similar opposite relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy relies on recognizing opposites. “Dependable” (reliable, steady) is the opposite of “capricious” (impulsive, unpredictable). We need a second pair exhibiting a similar antonymic relationship. Given Data / Assumptions: Base: dependable ↔ capricious (antonyms). Look for another clear antonym pair with comparable part-of-speech and register. Discard pairs that are unrelated, not opposites, or that do not share a sensible semantic axis. Concept / Approach: “Capable : inept” is a classic set of antonyms contrasting ability vs. inability. The remaining options are either mismatched or not antonyms (e.g., fallible vs. cantankerous are unrelated traits). Step-by-Step Solution: Confirm base: dependable (reliable) vs. capricious (unpredictable) — direct opposition.Scan options for genuine opposites: “capable : inept” qualifies.Reject others: “fallible : cantankerous” (error-prone vs. ill-tempered), “erasable : obtuse” (erasable vs. dull-minded), “malleable : limpid” (flexible vs. clear), “incorrigible : guilty” (incapable of reform vs. culpable — not opposites). Verification / Alternative check: Both pairs map clean, widely accepted antonyms contrasting competence/stability with its opposite. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They do not stand in opposition on a single semantic dimension; many are unrelated adjectives. Common Pitfalls: Selecting words with negative connotations and assuming they are opposites. Opposites must share a clear axis. Final Answer: capable : inept

Analogies Questions