All of the paragraphs in the passage contain information which explains how we see in three dimensions. The first paragraph ap proaches the topic from a physical standpoint -- the distance between the eyes and how the brain processes visual input. In the second para graph, the limitations of 3-D vision are established. Then the third paragraph introduces information about how we "see" three dimensions even when we know that what we are seeing (a flat canvas) is unidimensional. Finally, the topic is treated from a cultural standpoint.

Only one difference between the cultures is explained in the passage and only in the final paragraph. While the passage does mention that Western and primitive cultures perceive pictures differently, this is a detail used to develop the topic of how we see in three dimensions and is not the primary focus of the passage.

First, the passage mentions flat canvases rather than 3-D paintings. Second, the third paragraph explains how painters use monocular cues (not paintings) to try to get viewers to think they are seeing in three dimensions. The author mentions paintings as a detail to develop the topic of how we see in three dimensions, but paintings are not the primary focus of the passage.

That our eyes are three inches apart is a detail used to introduce the topic of 3-D vision. This option also suggests a reversal of the cause-effect relationship between the eyes and 3-D vision. Because our eyes are about three inches apart, we see in three dimensions. The distance between our eyes is a given; the consequence of this fact, 3-D vision, is what concerns the author of the passage. No reasons for the three-inch separation are suggested.

In the sentence preceeding the sentence containing "stereoptic," you are told that the eyes see two slightly different views of every scene. In the sentence containing "stereoptic," you learn that these two views are compared and the overlap (that is, whatever the different views have in common) becomes a picture. A picture made by comparing two slightly different views is a combination, not a reversal.

The context clues for determining the meaning of the words are to be found in the gist or general logic of the first paragraph. First, you are told directly that we see in three dimensions; in other words, our picture of the world is three-dimensional. Next, you learn the mechanism: each eye provides a different view, the two views are then compared, and the overlap of the two views becomes a "picture." That this picture is 3-D is repeated in the second paragraph (lines 11-15).

The point of the entire paragraph is that we see in three dimensions. The "picture" of what we see, a combination of two different views, is, to be sure, a singular image, but an image with three dimensions. Monocular would mean that only one eye was involved as defined in lines 22-25. The paragraph clearly states, "two slightly different views" and that "you see the world in three dimensions" (lines 4-5, 3).

In the sentence preceeding the sentence containing "stereoptic," you are told that the eyes see two slightly different views of every scene. In the sentence containing "stereoptic," you learn that these two views are compared and that the overlap (that is, whatever the different views have in common) becomes a picture. The picture is a combination, not an upside-down version, of what the eyes viewed.

The item stem directs you to select the most useful situation. A distant mountain range would be too far away for 3-D vision to be even a little useful. According to the passage, we only see in 3-D up to about 200 feet.

In lines (11-15) you are told that we do not see in 3-D beyond 200 feet, that is, over long distances. Thus, 3-D vision would not be very useful in looking at a distant mountain range or clouds. In the third paragraph the author states that paintings are more convincing when viewed with one eye -- in other words, without 3-D vision. The flower arrangement is the object among the choices that would be viewed best with 3-D vision.

The item stem directs you to select the most useful situation. Clouds would be too far away for 3-D vision to be even a little useful. According to the passage, we only see in 3-D up to about 200 feet.

The item stem directs you to select the most useful situation. 3-D vision could, potentially, be useful in viewing paintings because you would be closer than 200 feet. However, the third paragraph of the passage provides additional information which reveals that 3-D vision is not, after all, useful in viewing paintings. The author states that paintings are more convincing when we "close one eye" (lines 24-26) -- in other words, when we don't actually see in 3-D but just react to the monocular cues provided by the brain (lines 15-24).

Although this option repeats a phrase from the passage, "bigger means nearer" is only an example of a cultural difference. Pay close attention to the problem posed in the item stem: cultural differences are a supporting point. What larger, more general notion do they help explain? For what general point do they serve as an il lustration? This option is itself a detail, not a general point.

Although this option repeats some of the words from the passage, it is both incomplete and inaccurate. First, the fancy eyework is described as second nature to Westerners (see lines 32-35), not to all people (lines 37-38). Second, the existence of cultural differences in perception does not provide support for the point that fancy eyework is automatic -- it seems, in fact, to contradict it. Notice the repetition at the beginning and the end of the final paragraph that we learn to see what we see.

Although this option repeats some of the words from the third paragraph, its meaning is unrelated to the question. You are asked to determine which of the points the author makes is supported by the discussion of cultural differences. We do indeed get mixed signals from paintings because painters try to trick us into seeing with our brains rather than seeing the actual flat surface. Cultural dif ferences don't explain or illustrate the existence of mixed signals, although they do explain how various cultures see paintings dif ferently.

The point of the final paragraph is that "this fancy eyework" is a learned behavior. To demonstrate that the way we (Western cul tures) perceive is a learned and not an inborn, universal quality, the author mentions other cultures that perceive pictures differently. This contrast reinforces the idea that what we see depends to some extent on what we are trained to see. Thus the details about cultural differences support the major point that how we see is a learned behavior.

An author uses argumentative language when he tries to get the reader to agree with the author's viewpoint. This passage does not contain language suggesting that we ought to see in 3-D, that painters are wrong for trying to trick us, or that one culture sees better than another culture. In other words the author's purpose is not to argue but to explain the nature of 3-D vision and perception.

"Humorous" is not the best description of the language used.

Impersonal language contains no personal references. In this passage the author repeatedly makes personal reference to and con tact with the reader. Notice the use of the personal pronouns in phrases such as "Your eyes," "you see," "you encounter," "your brain," etc.

Both through the repetition of personal pronouns ("Your eyes," "you see," "you encounter," "our Western way,") and through the relatively simple choice of words for explaining the technical process of 3-D vision, the author establishes an almost conversational language. The passage is written as if the author were talking casually with the reader.

Although the word "constituent" is similar in spelling to the word "constitution," the logic of the passage does not support this choice. Don't be misled by the similar appearance of words (such as "judge" and "law") in this option and the passage. Read for meaning. Reread the second paragraph, substituting this option for the under lined word. It would not make sense for one judge to try to explain the situation to another judge, for his colleague would already know about the problem of having to run for office.

Begin by rereading the sentence containing "constituent." As you reread, substitute this option for "constituent." You should see fairly quickly that it makes no sense for one candidate for the office of judge to try to get the support of his opponent. In our political system, opposing candidates don't support each other. You do not, however, have to rely on prior political knowledge to determine the answer. This passage provides context clues.

Although it is true that the underlined word does in a general sense refer to ordinary citizens and that the passage is about the legal system, this option is not the meaning of the underlined word. Reread the first two paragraphs of the passage. The first paragraph establishes that the author, the "I," is an elected Georgia judge. As you read on into the second paragraph, you learn that the author disapproves of a system that forces judges to have to run for office. The support that judges have to try to gain comes in the form of votes and thus from voters, not from citizens serving on a jury.

Both the general logic of the passage and the sentence containing the word provide clues for determining meaning. From the first paragraph you learn that the author is an elected Georgia judge. From the first sentence of the second and the third paragraphs, you learn that Georgia judges are politicians, that is, elected officials. In sum, judges are elected representatives who need support -- in the form of votes. The people the judge represents are known as his constituents.

Reread the sentence containing the underlined phrase. No value judgment ("it is better") is implied here. The clause which follows the semi-colon must be closely related in meaning to the clause which precedes the punctuation mark. Use your knowledge of grammatical rules, and also note the similarity between "suffice," and "sufficient," a commonly used word.

The context clues for determining the meaning of this phrase are provided by the gist and grammatical structure of the third paragraph. Rules, known as canons, govern the behavior of Georgia judges. These canons are extremely lengthy and complex. They are, in fact, so complicated and unrealistic that a judge cannot follow the rules and campaign for office. It is enough ("sufficient" a common word, comes from the same base as "suffice") to say therefore that the canons make it impossible. An additional clue to the meaning of the phrase is provided by the grammatical structure of the sentence containing the phrase. Semicolons are used between two independent clauses related in meaning. In this instance, the clauses are joined by the phrase suffice it, which serves as a sentence modifier. The second clause expands on the information in the first clause. You learn that the canons are so complicated that they create an impossible situation.

Reread the sentence containing the underlined phrase. In the first clause of the sentence you learn that the canons are voluminous and complicated. In the second part of the sentence you learn that the canons make it impossible for an honest person to run for the office of judge and satisfy the rules. This impossibility is, to put it mildly, a complication. It would therefore be inconsistent with the meaning of the first clause to begin the second part of the sentence with a phrase that means "it is inexact."

Reread the sentence containing the underlined phrase. From the overall gist of the passage you know that the author is critical of the canons. From the target sentence you learn that he considers them voluminous, complicated, and impossible for an honest judge to follow. In sum, the author considers the canons themselves to be unfair. It wouldn't make any sense therefore for the underlined phrase to mean "it is unfair." The author considers it quite fair to criticize the problems of the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

The pronoun "them" takes the place of the noun "canons" stated at the beginning of the sentence (line 20). To answer correctly you have to understand another pronoun reference, that is, that "they" (line 22) refers to "canons" as does the objective case of the third person plural, "them." By following the logic of the sentence you could simply substitute the noun phrase in this option for the pronoun.

Keep in mind that personal pronouns refer to people and also to things. While the passage deals with Georgia judges, this sentence refers to them only in the phrase "an honest person." The plural pronoun "them" cannot take the place of this singular noun. Reread the sentence (starting on line 20), noting that the only plural noun is "canons" and further, that these rules are the subject matter of this particular sentence.

Reread the sentence (starting on line 20). Note that neither this sentence nor the one which precedes it contains the mention of "political commitments." Remember that pronouns take the place of nouns -- this noun phrase or one identical in meaning to it would have to have been used in order for the pronoun to replace it. Political commitments aren't mentioned in the target sentence or paragraph -- or even in the passage.

Keep in mind that personal pronouns refer to people and also to things. "Political supporters" are mentioned in the paragraphs which both precede and follow the paragraph containing the pronoun "them," but supporters are not mentioned in this third paragraph. This should be your first clue that this option is Incorrect, for it does not satisfy the guideline that a pronoun takes the place of a nearby noun. The mention of political supporters is simply too far away. More important, the logic of the sentence wouldn't fit this choice. The issue concerns judges' being true to the rules (canons) which govern judges, not judges' being true to their supporters.

While this option repeats the activities of the candidates mentioned in paragraph five, it does not fit the meaning of the quotation. The point of the passage is that having to campaign and thus violate the canons is silly, not that the candidates look silly. Don't be misled by an option which repeats material from the passage as this one does. You are to read for meaning, not just look to match words in the passage to words in the question and answer. Your signal that you should not read on a literal level to answer this question is provided by wording in the question stem; specifically, you are asked "What is meant?" Any answer to a question worded this way will require you to interpret.

Reread the paragraph containing the statement. Notice that the paragraph reports the candidates' activities: some wore political buttons at State Bar meetings, some shook hands with everyone they could, and one announced he had to rush off to a fund-raiser. The author expresses neither approval or disapproval of these actions; he simply reports them. This option, however, is a clear statement of criticism of behavior and therefore cannot be the correct response.

To interpret the meaning of this statement you must understand the general logic of the passage, that is, that having to run for the office of judge creates many problems. The examples of the judge's activities mentioned in the fifth paragraph (wearing political buttons, attending fund-raisers) are public violations of the judicial canons. As you learned from the third and fourth paragraphs, the campaign activities of judicial candidates are severely restricted by the canons. The activities mentioned in the fifth paragraph are violations of the rules described in paragraph four prohibiting soliciting votes and funds. But the candidates do what any candidate must do to be elected -- they campaign for office. The author considers it ridiculous that those who are elected to enforce and inter pret the law must violate the canons in order to hold the office of judge.

Reread the paragraph containing the statement. Notice that the paragraph reports the candidates' activities: some wore political buttons at State Bar meetings, some shook hands with everyone they could, and one announced he had to rush off to a fund-raiser. The paragraph does not contain a description of the candidates' qualifications or the author's opinion about their qualifications. In fact, qualifications are not discussed anywhere in the passage.

While "professional gatherings such as the State Bar" are specifically mentioned (lines 34-35), no information is provided that suggests that attending these meetings would interfere with a judge's chances for re-election. Some judges campaign at these meetings, but the author does not suggest that this is harmful to a political campaign.

Both commonly-held prior knowledge of the election process and information provided in the passage can be used to obtain this answer. The third and fourth paragraphs provide both a general description of the canons (voluminous, complicated) and specific examples of the rules applying to political campaigns (candidates cannot solicit funds or votes). Common knowledge suggests that the candidate who can't ask for funds or votes will receive few of them and therefore will have difficulty getting re-elected. Further, the last sentence of the third paragraph states that "it is impossible for an honest person to run a campaign and be true to" the canons. It is safe to conclude then that a judge who is honest, that is, who follows the canons, cannot run the type of campaign needed to win an election.