Question 1

Tool-to-professional mapping: “Surgeon : Scalpel”. Choose the pair that preserves the same specific tool → user relation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem pairs a profession with a characteristic hand tool used to perform its core work. We must find an equally specific mapping. Given Data / Assumptions: Scalpel is a surgeon’s precise cutting tool. A chisel is a sculptor’s carving tool. Other pairs are too broad or mismatched (instrument is a category, cabinet is an output, oven is equipment/venue, cockpit is a place). Concept / Approach: Prefer specific hand tool → practitioner, not product/place/category. “Sculptor : Chisel” mirrors the precision and specificity of “Surgeon : Scalpel.” Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the relation: specific tool → professional user. 2) Evaluate options for specificity and direction. 3) Select “Sculptor : Chisel”. Verification / Alternative check: Art and craft references list chisel as a fundamental sculpting tool. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are categories, outputs, or places, not specific tools paralleling the stem. Common Pitfalls: Accepting broad categories (instrument) instead of a specific hand tool. Final Answer: Sculptor : Chisel

Question 2

Part-to-owner mapping: “Horse : Hoof”. Select the option that preserves the anatomical-part → organism relation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem presents an anatomical part characteristic of an animal: horses have hooves. We must choose a pair that mirrors part → organism in the same orientation. Given Data / Assumptions: Feet are characteristic terminal limbs for humans; “beak” is a part of a bird, which is also acceptable but we must pick one correct option. Concept / Approach: Maintain direction and category: anatomical part → its bearer. “Man : Foot” mirrors “Horse : Hoof.” “Bird : Beak” is also a correct structure but test design typically permits a single keyed answer; we retain “Man : Foot” as the canonical parallel. The other options are non-anatomical or unrelated (color attribute, currency unit, object pair). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify anatomical-part relation. 2) Choose a human anatomical part mapping. 3) Exclude non-anatomical distractors. Verification / Alternative check: Anatomy basics confirm foot as a human limb extremity; hoof as equine extremity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not part → organism in the required sense or are off-domain. Common Pitfalls: Picking any association (e.g., currency) that lacks anatomical structure. Final Answer: Man : Foot

Question 3

Select the tool-to-professional relation analogous to: “Sailor : Compass”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We seek a profession paired with a characteristic tool. A sailor commonly uses a compass for navigation. The best parallel is a doctor using a stethoscope for auscultation. Given Data / Assumptions: Tool → user is the relation, not place → person or object → owner. Concept / Approach: Check direction and specificity. “Doctor : Stethoscope” matches. “Student : Exam” is event participation; “Pen : Officer” reverses and mismatches; “Painter : Artist” is co-hyponym/profession, not tool; “Driver : Highway” is user → place, not tool. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the stem as tool → professional user. 2) Select the medical parallel. 3) Eliminate non-tool relations. Verification / Alternative check: Medical basics confirm the stethoscope as a doctor’s diagnostic tool. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They break the required relation or reverse direction. Common Pitfalls: Choosing person–place or person–event relationships. Final Answer: Doctor : Stethoscope

Question 4

Map subject to its branch of study: “Cells : Cytology”. Choose the option that preserves the same “X : study of X” relation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a subject-to-discipline mapping. Cytology is the study of cells. We must identify the option where the second term names the scientific study of the first. Given Data / Assumptions: Key biological branches: entomology = study of insects; ornithology = study of birds (not worms); ichthyology = study of fishes; physiology = functions of organisms (not specifically diseases); morphology = form/structure (tissues are studied in histology). Concept / Approach: Only “Insect : Entomology” correctly mirrors “Cells : Cytology.” The others intentionally mismatch subject and field names to test vocabulary precision. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Parse “Cells : Cytology” as X : study of X. 2) Check each candidate for true study-of mapping. 3) Select “Insect : Entomology”. Verification / Alternative check: Any biology glossary confirms the definitions above. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They pair subjects with the wrong disciplines. Common Pitfalls: Confusing similar-sounding disciplines (ornithology vs ichthyology) or functional vs structural biology (physiology vs histology/morphology). Final Answer: Insect : Entomology

Question 5

Analogy — “Chair : Wood :: ?”. Choose the pair that mirrors an object and the primary material it is commonly made from.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An analogy compares relationships. In “Chair : Wood,” the first item is an everyday object and the second is the typical material from which that object is made. To solve the analogy, we must find another pair that preserves this “object → material” relation rather than a “container → content,” “tool → action,” or any other mismatch. Given Data / Assumptions: “Chair : Wood” encodes object-to-material (chairs are commonly made of wood). Exactly one option must map a common object to its characteristic material. Distractors may look plausible but represent different relations (e.g., content, usage, or storage). Concept / Approach: Identify which option expresses the same structural relation. We test each choice to see whether the second term is the basic substance used to make the first, in the most common, textbook sense. Step-by-Step Solution: Check “Book : Print” — “print” is a process/ink impression, not a material itself.Check “Mirror : Glass” — a mirror is characteristically made of glass with a reflective coating. This matches “object → material.”Check “Plate : Food” — food is the content placed on a plate (container → content), not the material of the plate.Check “Purse : Money” — money is content stored in a purse, not the purse’s material.Check “Bottle : Plastic” — many bottles are plastic; while this is also “object → material,” exam keys typically select the most canonical, unambiguous textbook pair. “Mirror : Glass” is the most universal mapping. Verification / Alternative check: “Mirror : Glass” satisfies the precise parallel to “Chair : Wood.” Although bottles can be glass or plastic, mirrors are classically glass-based, reinforcing the intended relation more consistently. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Book : Print — process/content, not material.Plate : Food — container : content.Purse : Money — container : content.Bottle : Plastic — also object : material, but less canonical across contexts; retained as a plausible distractor. Common Pitfalls: Confusing content or process with material; choosing a pair that fits loosely rather than the clearest, standard mapping. Final Answer: Mirror : Glass

Question 6

Analogy — “Nuts : Bolts”. Choose the pair that mirrors a fixed, conventional word duo that forms a well-known collocation or complementary set.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Nuts and bolts” is a set phrase referring to the essential practical details of something and also names two complementary hardware items commonly paired. The analogy requires recognizing a similarly entrenched, conventional pairing rather than an antonym pair or an adjective–noun phrase that is not a fixed collocation. Given Data / Assumptions: Nuts and bolts are complementary and form a stock phrase. The correct choice should be a well-known fixed duo rather than an arbitrary or opposite pairing. Only one option should match the collocation/complement pattern closely. Concept / Approach: Test each option for set-phrase status and complementarity. A strong collocation is recognizable, idiomatic, and used as a unit (similar to “nuts and bolts”). Step-by-Step Solution: “Nitty : Gritty” — classic collocation meaning the practical/core aspects, directly paralleling “nuts and bolts.”“Bare : Feet” — adjective + noun; not a conventional set phrase in the same idiomatic sense.“Naked : Clothes” — semantic opposition; not a fixed pair.“Hard : Soft” — antonyms; not a complementary duo.“Salt : Pepper” — complementary items and a common pair; plausible, but “nitty-gritty” more precisely mirrors the idiomatic-phrase nature of “nuts and bolts.” Verification / Alternative check: Both “Nitty : Gritty” and “Salt : Pepper” are strong pairs. However, “nuts and bolts” and “nitty-gritty” share the idiomatic meaning “practical essentials,” making this the best semantic parallel. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are either not idiomatic duos, are antonyms, or are adjective–noun descriptions rather than fixed collocations with shared semantic force. Common Pitfalls: Selecting any two commonly co-occurring words without checking for idiomatic unity and meaning equivalence. Final Answer: Nitty : Gritty

Question 7

Analogy — “Book : Author”. Select the pair that mirrors creator → creation (producer → product).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Book : Author” expresses a creator-to-creation relationship. We must pick another pair that preserves the same direction and role: the first term is a work, and the second is the person who creates it. Given Data / Assumptions: Direction matters: product/work → producer/creator. The mapping should be standard and unambiguous. Concept / Approach: Eliminate cause–effect, container–switch, or category mismatches and keep a clear “work → its creator” structure. Step-by-Step Solution: “Symphony : Composer” — a symphony is written by a composer (work → creator). ✔“Rain : Flood” — cause–effect; not creator–creation.“Light : Switch” — instrument triggering light; not creator–creation.“Song : Music” — song is a type of music; not a creator.“Painting : Artist” — also work → creator, but the stem expects a single answer; “symphony : composer” mirrors the literary-to-author relation more tightly in formality. Verification / Alternative check: Both “Painting : Artist” and “Symphony : Composer” match; the latter is stylistically parallel to “Book : Author” as text/music composition pairs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They do not encode a work-to-creator relation. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring direction (creator ↔ creation) or accepting any related pair without role alignment. Final Answer: Symphony : Composer

Question 8

Analogy — “Fan : Wings” (blades). Choose the pair where the second term is a key part/component of the first.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In everyday usage, the “wings” of a fan refer to its blades — an essential component. The analogy therefore encodes a whole-to-part (object → key component) relation. We must identify a wheel’s comparably essential part. Given Data / Assumptions: “Fan : Wings” uses “wings” to mean blades. We need “wheel : (its component).” Only one option should be a true part rather than a property or action. Concept / Approach: Distinguish between component, property (shape), action (what it does), and container/association. Step-by-Step Solution: “Spokes” are structural members of many wheels → correct component.“Round” is a shape property, not a part.“Cars” are vehicles that use wheels (association).“Moves” is an action.“Tyre” is also associated, but it is an attachment around the wheel, not the internal component comparable to “blades” for a fan; “spokes” is the textbook component. Verification / Alternative check: In standard mechanical description, spokes are integral wheel parts; tyres are separate fitted covers. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They do not express a clean whole-to-part relation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing properties or accessories with true constituent parts. Final Answer: Spokes

Question 9

Analogy — “Captain : Soldier”. Pick the pair that mirrors leader → subordinate/follower relationship.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Captain : Soldier” encodes a hierarchical relationship: the captain leads; the soldier follows commands. We must replicate “leader → subordinate/follower.” Given Data / Assumptions: The direction is from leader to the one led. Only one option should fit unambiguously. Concept / Approach: Eliminate roles that are organizations (“party”), objects (“chair”), or other leadership roles (“minister”). Choose the clear follower counterpart. Step-by-Step Solution: Leader → Follower mirrors Captain → Soldier in hierarchy.Other options fail to provide a subordinate role. Verification / Alternative check: Common organizational vocabulary confirms leader/follower as canonical counterparts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not direct hierarchical counterparts. Common Pitfalls: Selecting a related political term instead of the true counterpart. Final Answer: Follower

Question 10

Analogy — “Skirmish : War”. Choose the pair that mirrors small/local occurrence → widespread/large-scale occurrence within the same domain.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A “skirmish” is a minor battle; “war” is a large-scale conflict. The analogy requires the same scale relation in the health domain: an individual or local case vis-à-vis a widespread occurrence affecting many individuals. Given Data / Assumptions: Skirmish : War encodes small/local : large/widespread within one domain. We seek a health-domain pair with the same scaling relation. Concept / Approach: “Disease” (or a case of disease) vs population-level spread. “Epidemic” is a widespread occurrence of a disease in a community/region. “Pandemic” is global, one step larger; the exam standard mapping from an individual occurrence is “disease → epidemic.” Step-by-Step Solution: Match domains: military scale vs epidemiological scale.Select “Epidemic” as the scaled-up counterpart. Verification / Alternative check: “Infection” is synonymous with a case or disease process, not the scaled phenomenon. “Pandemic” is also scaled-up but typically beyond “epidemic” (global); “epidemic” best mirrors “war” as the next, accepted larger scale. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are either individuals, agents, or different roles, not the scaled collective phenomenon. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the epidemiological levels; ensure parallelism with the original scale contrast. Final Answer: Epidemic

Question 11

Analogy — “Tree : Root :: Smoke : ?”. Choose the option that stands to smoke as a generative source/cause (parallel to root as a generative base for the tree).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Roots are foundational to a tree — the source from which it anchors and draws sustenance. By analogy, we seek the common cause/source that gives rise to smoke. Among everyday causes, “fire” is the standard, primary source of smoke in general contexts. Given Data / Assumptions: “Tree : Root” treats root as a fundamental source/support for the tree. We need a similarly foundational generator for smoke. The relation should be causal/generative, not merely associative or a pathway. Concept / Approach: Distinguish “cause/source” from “container,” “path,” or “by-product.” While cigarettes can produce smoke, “fire” is the canonical, broad cause that mirrors the generality of “root.” Step-by-Step Solution: Identify a primary generator: fire → smoke (combustion → fumes).Eliminate non-generators: chimney is a conduit, heat may exist without smoke, ash is residue.Cigarette is a specific case involving fire; “fire” captures the general cause best. Verification / Alternative check: In standard logical analogies, generic cause is preferred over a specific instance, preserving parallelism with “root” rather than a particular brand/source. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are either specific instances, pathways, or related effects, not the fundamental cause. Common Pitfalls: Choosing a specific example (cigarette) instead of the general cause (fire). Final Answer: Fire

Question 12

Analogy — “Good : Bad :: Roof : ?”. Select the option that stands as a standard opposite/counterpart to “roof,” paralleling the antonym pattern.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Good : Bad” establishes an antonym relationship. The second pair must preserve this opposition pattern in a structural/architectural context. In a room/house, “roof” and “floor” represent opposing upper and lower boundaries. Given Data / Assumptions: The target is an opposite/counterpart, not just any related structural term. Common architectural understanding is assumed. Concept / Approach: Identify which element is the natural counterpart to a roof in vertical opposition within a built space. Step-by-Step Solution: Roof (top) ↔ Floor (bottom) is a well-known opposition.Wall, pillar, terrace, and ceiling are related, but not opposites of “roof.” Verification / Alternative check: “Ceiling” is the inner lower face of a roof/slab, yet not the opposite in the way “floor” is; the opposite boundary is “floor.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are structures or surfaces but do not form the canonical vertical opposite to “roof.” Common Pitfalls: Choosing “ceiling” due to proximity; the antonymic counterpart is “floor.” Final Answer: Floor

Question 13

Analogy — “Oval : Circle :: Rectangle : ?”. Choose the figure that is a special case of the first, preserving the “general shape → special case” relation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair “Oval : Circle” can be read as “general shape → special case.” A circle is a special kind of oval (in informal usage; more precisely, a circle is a special ellipse with equal axes). We must find a parallel relation for “Rectangle : ?”. Given Data / Assumptions: Maintain the direction: broader class → special instance. All terms should belong to the 2D shape family. Concept / Approach: Among plane figures, a square is a special rectangle (all sides equal, angles 90°), fitting the same class–subclass relation as circle to oval/ellipse. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the special case of a rectangle → square.Eliminate unrelated terms (properties or different classes). Verification / Alternative check: Geometric hierarchy confirms square ⊂ rectangle. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not special cases of rectangles or are unrelated properties. Common Pitfalls: Confusing shape properties (diagonal, periphery) with shapes. Final Answer: Square

Question 14

Analogy — “Thick : Thin :: Idle : ?”. Select the antonym that completes the pair.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem “Thick : Thin” encodes an antonym relationship. We must choose the standard opposite of “idle” to preserve the same pattern. In work/effort vocabulary, “industrious” is the canonical antonym of “idle.” Given Data / Assumptions: We are dealing with adjective–adjective antonyms. Distractors may be nouns or near-synonyms that do not mirror the pattern. Concept / Approach: Filter for a direct opposite adjective matching the part of speech and semantic field (work/effort). Step-by-Step Solution: Confirm “Industrious” as opposite of “Idle.”Eliminate “Virtuous” (moral quality), “Business” (noun), “Activity” (noun), and note “Diligent” is a near-synonym of “industrious” but stem expects a single keyed choice; “Industrious” is the textbook antonym. Verification / Alternative check: Dictionaries list industrious/diligent as antonyms of idle; choose the most conventional opposite. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are wrong part of speech or not opposites. Common Pitfalls: Picking a positive adjective in general (e.g., “virtuous”) instead of the precise antonym. Final Answer: Industrious

Question 15

Analogy — “Umpire : Game”. Choose the pair that mirrors a person who officially oversees/controls a formal proceeding or event.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An analogy tests whether two pairs share the same underlying relationship. In the stem, “Umpire : Game,” an umpire is the official who oversees and controls the conduct of a game by applying rules impartially. We must select a second pair that preserves this role-based oversight relationship in a different domain. Given Data / Assumptions: An umpire is an official arbiter for games or sports. The second term should be the event or proceeding that is supervised. Exactly one option should express “official overseer : event.” Concept / Approach: We look for a role whose function is to preside over an event, enforce norms/protocols, manage turns, and keep order—parallel to an umpire in sport. A “moderator” fills this function in formal discussions, panels, or debates, ensuring orderly discourse and adherence to rules (time limits, speaking order, civility). Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the role in each option and ask: does it officially preside over an event?“Moderator : Debate” — yes; the moderator controls proceedings of a debate.Other options either mismatch roles or pair a professional with a product/event they create rather than supervise. Verification / Alternative check: Compare the responsibilities: umpire enforces rules on players; moderator enforces format/rules on speakers. Both are neutral arbiters concerned with procedure rather than content outcomes, satisfying the analogy tightly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Prodigy : Wonder — subject : attribute/effect, not overseer : event.Chef : Banquet — producer : product/event (the chef prepares food), not overseer.Legislator : Election — election selects legislators; the role is not presiding over the election event.Referee : Match — also an overseeing official, but not among the original answer options; retained only as a plausible distractor format-wise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing producer/performer roles with supervisory/arbiter roles, or reversing the direction of the relationship. Final Answer: Moderator : Debate

Question 16

Analogy — “Confession : Testimony”. Select the pair that mirrors a first-person statement vs a statement about someone/something (self vs other) in a formal context.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Confession” is a statement made by a person about their own acts, typically admitting guilt; “testimony” is a statement given (often under oath) by a witness concerning events, frequently about others or external facts. Thus the contrast is “self-statement” vs “statement about someone/something else” in a formal setting. We need a pair that captures this same self/other authorship contrast in another domain. Given Data / Assumptions: Confession: first-person acknowledgment about oneself. Testimony: formal statement (often about others or observed facts). We seek a parallel where authorship/subject switches from self to other. Concept / Approach: In literature, an “autobiography” is a life account written by oneself; a “biography” is a life account written by another person. This mirrors the “self vs other” authorship distinction carried by confession vs testimony in legal discourse. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the self-authored work: autobiography.Identify the externally authored counterpart: biography.Confirm the role symmetry with confession (self) vs testimony (witness about others/external events). Verification / Alternative check: Check each distractor: they fail to represent a clean self/other authorship contrast. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Crime : Petition — offense vs request; unrelated.Edition : Correction — publishing version vs change; not about authorship subject.Witness : Judgement — person vs decision; category mismatch.Affidavit : Deposition — both formal statements; lacks the self vs other authorship contrast. Common Pitfalls: Equating any legal terms with the stem without checking the underlying relationship (self-authored vs externally-authored statements). Final Answer: Autobiography : Biography

Question 17

Analogy — “Studious : Erudite”. Choose the pair that mirrors habit/quality leading to an achieved trait or outcome.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Studious” describes a habit/quality (diligent study). “Erudite” describes the resulting attained trait (having or showing great knowledge). Thus the relationship is cause/quality → resulting status/outcome. We need a pair that similarly reflects a personal trait or approach leading to an outcome typically associated with it. Given Data / Assumptions: Studious (habit) tends to produce erudite (learned) as an outcome. We seek a plausible cause → effect mapping in personal attributes. Concept / Approach: “Enterprising” (showing initiative/resourcefulness) often leads to becoming “rich” (financial success). While not guaranteed, it mirrors the general tendency just as studying often leads to erudition; both encode a widely accepted cause-to-result progression. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the habit/quality term: enterprising.Identify the plausible outcome trait/status: rich.Confirm directional causality (habit precedes outcome), as in studious → erudite. Verification / Alternative check: Other choices either reverse roles, mismatch parts of speech, or express negative/ill-posed relations (e.g., cupidity → poor is contradictory; virtue → judge is category misaligned; ignorance → illiterate confuses knowledge state vs capability/education attainment). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Cupidity : Poor — cupidity (greed) does not inherently cause poverty.Virtuous : Judge — moral quality vs profession; not outcome by necessity.Ignorance : Illiterate — different constructs; illiteracy is inability to read/write, not necessarily caused by general ignorance.Honest : Trusted — close, but “trusted” is social perception; exams often prefer economic success as a parallel to erudition (earned status via effort), hence “Enterprising : Rich.” Common Pitfalls: Assuming determinism; analogies rely on typical, culturally recognized tendencies, not strict causation. Final Answer: Enterprising : Rich

Question 18

Analogy — “Action : Reaction”. Choose the pair that mirrors an initiating act and its direct counter-response.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Action : Reaction” signals an initiating force/act followed by a countering response. In social/behavioral terms, to “assail” (attack) invites a “defend” (protect/repel) response. We must choose the pair that preserves this initiate–counter pattern most cleanly. Given Data / Assumptions: Action → reaction is directional and complementary. We seek verb-to-verb pairing expressing opposed roles. Concept / Approach: Evaluate each option for a natural counter-response relationship. “Assail : Defend” provides a precise response mapping (attack vs defend). Antonyms alone (introvert/extrovert) do not encode action–response; state–treatment is also mismatched. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify initiating act: assail.Identify the direct defensive response: defend.Confirm that the pair fits the same pattern as action → reaction. Verification / Alternative check: “Attack : Retaliation” (added distractor) also evokes action–response, but “retaliation” is another action rather than a direct immediate defense. “Assail : Defend” is the crisp, complementary response. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Introvert : Extrovert — contrasting personality types; not response dynamics.Diseased : Treatment — condition vs remedy; not action–reaction symmetry.Death : Rebirth — philosophical/religious notion; not a counter-response within the same frame. Common Pitfalls: Confusing antonyms or remedy relations with the specific idea of an opposed counter-action. Final Answer: Assail : Defend

Question 19

Analogy — “Triangle : Hexagon”. Select the pair that preserves the sides-doubling pattern (3 → 6 corresponds to 4 → 8).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Polygons are classified by the number of sides. A triangle has 3 sides; a hexagon has 6 sides—double the number. We must find a pair that mirrors this doubling from another starting polygon. Given Data / Assumptions: 3 → 6 implies “sides × 2.” Choose a pair where first polygon’s sides doubled equals the second polygon’s sides. Concept / Approach: Rectangles have 4 sides; octagons have 8 sides. Thus 4 → 8 mirrors 3 → 6. Other options either involve 3D shapes, unrelated categories, or do not follow the doubling rule. Step-by-Step Solution: Verify: triangle(3) → hexagon(6) = ×2.Check candidates: rectangle(4) → octagon(8) = ×2 ✔.Eliminate mismatches (3D solids, non-doubling side counts). Verification / Alternative check: This interpretation is standard in quantitative analogies of geometric figures. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either mismatch dimensionality (cone/sphere), do not double (pentagon→heptagon is +2), or are category leaps (angle vs quadrilateral). Common Pitfalls: Confusing additive patterns (+n) with multiplicative patterns (×2) when the stem clearly suggests doubling. Final Answer: Rectangle : Octagon

Question 20

Analogy — “Stare : Glance”. Choose the pair that mirrors high-intensity/longer action vs low-intensity/brief action within the same domain.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Stare” is to look intensely/for longer; “glance” is to look briefly. The relation is intensity/duration contrast within the same action domain (seeing/looking). We seek a pair in another domain with the same stronger-vs-lighter contrast. Given Data / Assumptions: Action pairs must share a domain and differ by magnitude/duration. Only one option should encode this same graded contrast. Concept / Approach: In drinking, “gulp” implies taking in a large quantity quickly, whereas “sip” indicates a small, brief intake. This parallels stare (sustained/intense) vs glance (brief/light). Step-by-Step Solution: Map the semantic field: looking → drinking.Select the high-vs-low intensity pair: gulp vs sip. Verification / Alternative check: Other options do not encode a graded magnitude contrast of the same action; they are different actions or hierarchical processes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Confide : Tell — nuance of privacy vs general telling, not intensity.Hunt : Stalk — related but distinct tactical actions.Step : Walk — unit vs composite action, not intensity contrast.Shout : Speak — volume contrast is plausible but “speak” is the generic action; “gulp : sip” more directly mirrors stare : glance in magnitude/duration. Common Pitfalls: Choosing generic vs specific rather than brief vs intense within the same action family. Final Answer: Gulp : Sip

Analogy Questions