Nineteenth-century neurology was dominated by two opposing schools of thought. Early in the century Franz Gall claimed that the bumps...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Nineteenth-century neurology was dominated by two opposing schools of thought. Early in the century Franz Gall claimed that the bumps on a person's head revealed personality traits, each of which was controlled by a specific region of the brain. While this pseudoscience—phrenology- enjoyed a fashionable success. Gall was ridiculed by the leading neurologist of the 1840s, M. J. P. Flourens, who argued that the brain functioned as a whole, that individual bodily functions were not dependent on separate regions of the brain, and that it was impossible to predict the specific effects of any localized form of brain damage.
In 1861 the neuroanatomist Paul Broca challenged Flourens and the holistic school by demonstrating that damage to a specific region on the left side of the cerebral cortex caused severe language problems. Subsequently, the neurologist Carl Wernicke argued that the region discovered by Broca was somehow responsible for translating language formulated in the brain into the mechanical movements of the vocal cords, the tongue, and the mouth. Wernicke believed that a separate region he himself had discovered was responsible for the recognition of speech as distinct from other sounds. Clinicians soon found that such localization of brain functions explained neurological disorders in addition to language disorders. In 1884, for example, a patient with partial paralysis had a brain tumor removed in the first such operation in medical history. The neurological symptoms enabled the surgeon to locate the exact position of the tumor.
Although this localization approach was largely dismissed by scientists between the 1920s and the 1950s, the research performed by the neurologist Norman Geschwind seems to have vindicated the theories of Broca and Wernicke. Beginning in 1965 Geschwind persuasively argued that in human beings, sensory information is initially processed in primary sensory areas of the brain, then relayed to neighboring regions known as association areas, where powerful associations are made between visual and auditory sensations, auditory and tactile, tactile and visual, and so forth. Damage to association areas could, according to Geschwind, explain why some brain-damaged patients can, for example, see previously familiar objects without recognizing them, but, upon touching the same objects, name them without difficulty.
According to the passage, the work of Wernicke bore which of the following relationships to the work of Broca?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Nineteenth-century neurology was dominated by two opposing schools of thought. | What it says: In the 1800s, brain science was split between two main competing ideas. What it does: Sets up the main framework - introduces a conflict/debate structure Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the opening - establishes our roadmap Visualization: School A: [To be revealed] School B: [To be revealed] Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC setup - when you see "two opposing schools," expect the passage to explain each side and possibly resolve the conflict |
| Early in the century Franz Gall claimed that the bumps on a person's head revealed personality traits, each of which was controlled by a specific region of the brain. | What it says: Gall believed head bumps showed personality, and each trait came from a specific brain area. What it does: Introduces School A with specific detail Source/Type: Historical claim by researcher Gall Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the first of our "two opposing schools" - builds directly on sentence 1 Visualization: Gall's Theory: Head bump 1 → Personality trait 1 → Brain region 1 Head bump 2 → Personality trait 2 → Brain region 2 Head bump 3 → Personality trait 3 → Brain region 3 What We Know So Far: School A believes in specific brain regions controlling specific functions What We Don't Know Yet: What School B believes, whether either is correct |
| While this pseudoscience—phrenology- enjoyed a fashionable success. | What it says: This fake science (called phrenology) became popular. What it does: Adds context and gives the theory a name Source/Type: Author's assessment (calling it "pseudoscience") Connection to Previous Sentences: Directly elaborates on Gall's theory from sentence 2 - "this" refers back to Gall's claims Visualization: Gall's Phrenology: Popular but fake science Reading Strategy Insight: The author is telling us Gall was wrong by calling it "pseudoscience" |
| Gall was ridiculed by the leading neurologist of the 1840s, M. J. P. Flourens, who argued that the brain functioned as a whole, that individual bodily functions were not dependent on separate regions of the brain, and that it was impossible to predict the specific effects of any localized form of brain damage. | What it says: Flourens mocked Gall and argued the brain works as one unit, not separate regions. What it does: Introduces School B in direct opposition to School A Source/Type: Flourens' scientific argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us School B - the direct opposite of Gall's specific-regions theory Visualization: School A (Gall): Brain region 1, region 2, region 3 (separate functions) School B (Flourens): Brain = one unified whole Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect opposition setup - now we have our complete "two schools" from sentence 1 What We Know So Far: Complete picture of the debate - specific regions vs. whole brain What We Don't Know Yet: How this debate was resolved |
| In 1861 the neuroanatomist Paul Broca challenged Flourens and the "holistic" school by demonstrating that damage to a specific region on the left side of the cerebral cortex caused severe language problems. | What it says: Broca proved Flourens wrong by showing one brain area controlled language. What it does: Introduces evidence that supports School A over School B Source/Type: Scientific demonstration/evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This swings the pendulum back toward Gall's "specific regions" idea and away from Flourens' "whole brain" theory Visualization: Flourens' Theory: ❌ (challenged) Back to Gall-style thinking: ✓ (one region = language) Reading Strategy Insight: This gives us actual evidence, not just theory - Broca had proof |
| Subsequently, the neurologist Carl Wernicke argued that the region discovered by Broca was somehow responsible for translating language formulated in the brain into the mechanical movements of the vocal cords, the tongue, and the mouth. | What it says: Wernicke explained that Broca's region turns thoughts into speech movements. What it does: Builds on and explains Broca's discovery Source/Type: Wernicke's scientific explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on Broca's finding - not new evidence, but a deeper explanation of how that brain region works Visualization: Wernicke's Explanation of Broca's Region: Brain thought → Broca's region → vocal cords/tongue/mouth → speech Reading Strategy Insight: This is elaboration, not complication - Wernicke is explaining HOW Broca's discovery works |
| Wernicke believed that a separate region he himself had discovered was responsible for the recognition of speech as distinct from other sounds. | What it says: Wernicke found another region that recognizes speech sounds. What it does: Adds a second specific brain region to support the "localization" approach Source/Type: Wernicke's research claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the pattern started by Broca - more evidence for School A (specific regions control specific functions) Visualization: Region 1 (Broca): Produces speech Region 2 (Wernicke): Recognizes speech Reading Strategy Insight: The evidence is piling up for the "specific regions" school - we're seeing a clear pattern |
| Clinicians soon found that such "localization" of brain functions explained neurological disorders in addition to language disorders. | What it says: Doctors found that the "specific regions" idea explained many brain problems, not just language ones. What it does: Generalizes the success beyond just Broca and Wernicke's language findings Source/Type: Clinical evidence/medical practice Connection to Previous Sentences: This is a summary statement - "such localization" refers back to all the Broca/Wernicke specific-region discoveries Visualization: Localization Success: Language disorders: ✓ (Broca, Wernicke) Other neurological disorders: ✓ (clinicians) Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity. The author is telling us the "specific regions" approach worked widely |
| In 1884, for example, a patient with partial paralysis had a brain tumor removed in the first such operation in medical history. | What it says: In 1884, doctors used this knowledge to successfully remove a brain tumor - the first time ever. What it does: Provides a concrete example of the clinical success mentioned in the previous sentence Source/Type: Historical medical example Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the promised example of how "localization explained neurological disorders" - demonstrates real-world application Visualization: 1884 Success Story: Patient symptoms → doctors locate exact tumor position → successful surgery Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC pattern - general claim followed by specific example. This confirms localization worked in practice |
| The neurological symptoms enabled the surgeon to locate the exact position of the tumor. | What it says: The patient's symptoms told the surgeon exactly where the tumor was. What it does: Completes the example by explaining how localization made the surgery possible Source/Type: Explanation of the medical procedure Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains the mechanics of the 1884 example - shows WHY localization was so revolutionary Visualization: Symptom 1 → "tumor must be in region 1" Symptom 2 → "tumor must be in region 2" Combined symptoms → exact tumor location Reading Strategy Insight: This completes our understanding of the example - no new complexity, just filling in the details |
| Although this "localization" approach was largely dismissed by scientists between the 1920s and the 1950s, the research performed by the neurologist Norman Geschwind seems to have vindicated the theories of Broca and Wernicke. | What it says: Scientists rejected localization for 30 years (1920s-1950s), but Geschwind proved Broca and Wernicke were right. What it does: Introduces a temporary setback and then a modern vindication Source/Type: Historical summary and modern research assessment Connection to Previous Sentences: This shows the debate continued - localization succeeded, then was rejected, then proven right again Visualization: Timeline: 1800s: Localization succeeds (Broca, Wernicke, 1884 surgery) 1920s-1950s: Scientists dismiss it Modern era: Geschwind proves it right Reading Strategy Insight: "Although" signals contrast, but notice the final result - localization wins in the end |
| Beginning in 1965 Geschwind persuasively argued that in human beings, sensory information is initially processed in primary sensory areas of the brain, then relayed to neighboring regions known as association areas, where powerful associations are made between visual and auditory sensations, auditory and tactile, tactile and visual, and so forth. | What it says: Geschwind (starting 1965) showed that brain areas work together in a sequence: first basic processing, then association areas connect different senses. What it does: Explains Geschwind's specific theory that vindicated localization Source/Type: Geschwind's research argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains HOW Geschwind "vindicated" Broca and Wernicke - he showed a more sophisticated version of localization Visualization: Geschwind's Process: Step 1: Primary areas (sight, sound, touch) Step 2: Association areas - Connect sight + sound - Connect sound + touch - Connect touch + sight Reading Strategy Insight: This explains the "vindication" mentioned in the previous sentence - specific regions DO matter, but they work together |
| Damage to association areas could, according to Geschwind, explain why some brain-damaged patients can, for example, see previously familiar objects without recognizing them, but, upon touching the same objects, name them without difficulty. | What it says: If association areas are damaged, patients might see an object but not recognize it, yet recognize it immediately when they touch it. What it does: Provides a concrete example of how Geschwind's theory works in practice Source/Type: Clinical example supporting Geschwind's theory Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the practical proof of Geschwind's association area theory - just like the 1884 surgery example proved early localization Visualization: Patient with Association Area Damage: Sees familiar keys: "I see something but don't know what it is" Touches same keys: "Oh, these are my keys!" Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect parallel to earlier in the passage - theory followed by real-world example. This confirms Geschwind's vindication of localization Final Pattern Recognition: The passage has come full circle - started with localization vs. holistic debate, and ends with sophisticated localization winning |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To trace the historical development of brain science theories and show how an early debate was eventually resolved through modern research.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author walks us through a complete historical cycle in brain science:
- First, the author sets up a major scientific debate from the 1800s between two opposing views: one claiming specific brain regions control specific functions (Gall's theory) versus another claiming the brain works as one unified whole (Flourens' theory)
- Next, the author shows how evidence began favoring the "specific regions" approach through discoveries by Broca and Wernicke, who found distinct brain areas responsible for different aspects of language
- Then, the author demonstrates how this approach proved successful in medical practice, even enabling the first successful brain tumor surgery, but notes that scientists later rejected these ideas for several decades
- Finally, the author explains how modern researcher Geschwind vindicated the early theories by showing that specific brain regions do matter, but work together in sophisticated ways through association areas
Main Point:
The "specific brain regions" theory that was proposed in the early 1800s, then rejected for decades, turned out to be essentially correct when modern science showed that different brain areas do have specialized functions and work together in complex ways.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify the specific relationship between Wernicke's work and Broca's work. This is a detail question that requires us to understand how these two researchers' contributions connected to each other.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we can see that:
- Broca's contribution (1861): He "challenged Flourens and the 'holistic' school by demonstrating that damage to a specific region on the left side of the cerebral cortex caused severe language problems"
- Wernicke's first contribution: He "argued that the region discovered by Broca was somehow responsible for translating language formulated in the brain into the mechanical movements of the vocal cords, the tongue, and the mouth"
- Wernicke's second contribution: He "believed that a separate region he himself had discovered was responsible for the recognition of speech as distinct from other sounds"
Our passage analysis noted that Wernicke's work "builds on and explains Broca's discovery" and "elaborates on Broca's finding - not new evidence, but a deeper explanation of how that brain region works."
Prethinking:
Based on the passage structure, Wernicke did two things in relation to Broca's work:
- He provided a detailed explanation of HOW Broca's discovered region actually functioned
- He added his own discovery of a related but separate brain region for speech recognition
This suggests Wernicke both elaborated on Broca's work (explaining its mechanism) and supplemented it (adding a related finding). The relationship appears to be one of building upon and extending Broca's initial discovery.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage shows no evidence that Wernicke "unintentionally initiated" dismissal of Broca's theories
- The dismissal mentioned in the passage occurred "between the 1920s and the 1950s," long after Wernicke's work
- Wernicke actually supported and built upon Broca's findings rather than undermining them
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did Wernicke somehow cause the later rejection of localization theories? → No, the passage clearly states the dismissal happened decades later and was reversed by Geschwind's work
- Was Wernicke's intent different from his actual impact? → The passage shows no contradiction between Wernicke's intent and results
Why It's Wrong:
- Both Wernicke and Broca challenged Flourens in the same way - by providing evidence for localization
- The passage shows they used similar approaches (finding specific brain regions for specific functions)
- There's no indication they challenged Flourens "in radically different ways"
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did Broca and Wernicke use different methodologies? → The passage doesn't suggest different approaches, just different discoveries within the same localization framework
- Were their challenges to Flourens fundamentally different? → Both provided evidence for specific brain regions controlling specific functions
Why It's Wrong:
- Both researchers dealt with the same type of disorder - language/speech problems
- Wernicke's work was directly related to Broca's language findings, not a different neurological category
- The passage shows Wernicke explained Broca's region and found another language-related region
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did Wernicke study non-language disorders? → The passage only mentions Wernicke's language-related discoveries
- Were speech production and speech recognition different types of disorders? → These are different aspects of the same language system, not different disorder categories
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage shows no evidence that Wernicke challenged any of Broca's findings
- Wernicke explained how Broca's region worked and added his own discovery
- This describes contradiction rather than the supportive relationship shown in the passage
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did Wernicke disagree with Broca about what his region did? → No, Wernicke provided an explanation of Broca's region's function
- Was there scientific conflict between these researchers? → The passage presents them as building on each other's work collaboratively
Why It's Right:
- Wernicke explained the mechanism of Broca's discovered region (elaboration)
- Wernicke discovered his own separate but related brain region (supplementation)
- The passage shows Wernicke building upon rather than contradicting Broca's work
Key Evidence: "Subsequently, the neurologist Carl Wernicke argued that the region discovered by Broca was somehow responsible for translating language formulated in the brain into the mechanical movements of the vocal cords, the tongue, and the mouth. Wernicke believed that a separate region he himself had discovered was responsible for the recognition of speech as distinct from other sounds."