Wine connoisseurs expect their beverage to be bottled in glass and sealed with a cork. Yet as cheap alternatives to...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
Wine connoisseurs expect their beverage to be bottled in glass and sealed with a cork. Yet as cheap alternatives to cork have become available and high fuel prices have made transporting glass more expensive, some winemakers have adopted as an alternative to glass bottles cartons made from layers of polythene, aluminum foil, and paper. Cartons have been rightly criticized for allowing oxygen to seep in—which eventually creates a stale flavor—but a study conducted by Gary Pickering's research team reveals that they may have advantages.
High levels of chemicals called methoxypyrazines (MPs) can make wines taste like they were made of underripe or low-quality fruit. Originally grapes were thought to be wine's only source of MPs, but several studies in North America and France point to Asian lady beetles, which eat grapes and can accidentally enter the winemaking process. Winemakers have been unsuccessful at removing undesirable MPs; worse, the beetles are also becoming more prevalent in other winemaking regions.
Pickering's team investigated how packaging impacts MP concentration by adding three MP compounds to wines in cartons and glass bottles. Natural cork, synthetic cork, or screw caps sealed the bottles. After eighteen months, the MPs isobutyl-MP (IBMP), isopropyl-MP (IPMP), and sec-butyl-MP (SBMP) had fallen by 45 percent, 32 percent, and 26 percent, respectively, in the cartoned wine. In bottled wines, IBMP (which produces a "sweet pepper" taste) fell less: 37 percent for synthetic cork, 36 percent for screw cap, and 31 percent for natural cork. IPMP (associated with "earthy" flavors) increased 23 percent for natural cork, but fell 7 percent for screw cap and 19 percent for synthetic cork. SBMP (thought to help determine aroma) rose in all bottled wine.
Pickering speculates that the wine permeates the cartons' inner polythene layers and makes contact with the aluminum, to which MP molecules stick, thus removing them from the wine. So adjusting carton composition could help control MP concentrations. Cartons might thus assume an important role in the market for wines that tend to be high in MPs but will be consumed relatively soon after packaging, before significant oxidation occurs. However, for grand wines—those most favored by connoisseurs—glass bottles with natural corks are likely to remain the packaging of choice.
Ques. 1/4
The primary purpose of the passage is to
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Wine connoisseurs expect their beverage to be bottled in glass and sealed with a cork. | What it says: Wine experts prefer traditional glass bottles with cork stoppers. What it does: Establishes the traditional expectation/standard for wine packaging. Source/Type: Statement of fact about consumer preferences. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the opening - establishes baseline expectation. Visualization: Traditional wine setup: Glass bottle + Cork stopper = What wine experts want Reading Strategy Insight: Simple opening that sets up what's "normal" - expect alternatives to be discussed next. |
| Yet as cheap alternatives to cork have become available and high fuel prices have made transporting glass more expensive, some winemakers have adopted as an alternative to glass bottles cartons made from layers of polythene, aluminum foil, and paper. | What it says: Economic pressures are pushing winemakers away from traditional glass/cork toward layered carton packaging. What it does: Introduces the main departure from tradition and explains why it's happening. Source/Type: Statement of industry trend/fact. Connection to Previous Sentences: Contrasts directly with sentence 1 - "Yet" signals we're moving away from what connoisseurs expect. This builds on the traditional expectation by showing why it's being challenged. Visualization: Traditional: Glass + Cork (expensive) New Alternative: Polythene + Aluminum + Paper layers (cheaper) Driving forces: Cork alternatives cheaper + Glass transport costs higher Reading Strategy Insight: Classic setup pattern - establish norm, then show why it's changing. We can expect discussion of pros/cons of this change. |
| Cartons have been rightly criticized for allowing oxygen to seep in—which eventually creates a stale flavor—but a study conducted by Gary Pickering's research team reveals that they may have advantages. | What it says: Cartons have a known problem (oxygen leakage causes staleness), but new research suggests they might have benefits too. What it does: Acknowledges the downside of cartons while introducing the main research that will be discussed. Source/Type: Factual criticism + researcher's findings. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 2's introduction of cartons by giving us the major criticism AND introducing the research that challenges this negative view. The "but" structure suggests we'll learn about unexpected benefits. What We Know So Far: Cartons replacing glass/cork due to cost, cartons have oxygen problem, but Pickering found advantages What We Don't Know Yet: What advantages? What did Pickering study exactly? Visualization: Carton Problem: Oxygen seeps in → Creates stale flavor BUT: Pickering's research → Found advantages (unknown yet) Reading Strategy Insight: The phrase "but...reveals that they may have advantages" signals the passage will focus on the positive findings, not just the known problems. |
| High levels of chemicals called methoxypyrazines (MPs) can make wines taste like they were made of underripe or low-quality fruit. | What it says: There are chemicals called MPs that make wine taste bad - like unripe or poor fruit. What it does: Introduces a specific wine quality problem that will be central to understanding Pickering's research. Source/Type: Scientific fact about wine chemistry. Connection to Previous Sentences: This seems like new information, but it's actually setting up what Pickering's "advantages" might be about. We know cartons have advantages - this introduces a wine problem that cartons might help solve. What We Don't Know Yet: How this connects to cartons vs. glass, what causes MP problems Visualization: MPs in wine → Bad taste (like unripe/low-quality fruit) Question: How do cartons help with this? Reading Strategy Insight: When RC introduces a new concept after mentioning research, that concept is usually what the research addresses. Expect MPs to be the focus of Pickering's study. |
| Originally grapes were thought to be wine's only source of MPs, but several studies in North America and France point to Asian lady beetles, which eat grapes and can accidentally enter the winemaking process. | What it says: Scientists first thought grapes caused MP problems, but now they know Asian lady beetles (which eat grapes and get into wine-making) also cause MPs. What it does: Explains where the MP problem comes from and shows scientific understanding has evolved. Source/Type: Research findings from multiple studies. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 4's introduction of MPs by explaining the source of the problem. The "but" structure shows updated scientific understanding. Visualization: Original thinking: Grapes → MPs → Bad taste Updated understanding: Grapes + Asian lady beetles → MPs → Bad taste Beetle pathway: Beetles eat grapes → Beetles enter wine process → More MPs Reading Strategy Insight: This is background information building up the MP problem. We're learning WHY MPs are an issue before learning how cartons help. |
| Winemakers have been unsuccessful at removing undesirable MPs; worse, the beetles are also becoming more prevalent in other winemaking regions. | What it says: Winemakers can't solve the MP problem, and it's getting worse because beetles are spreading to more areas. What it does: Emphasizes how serious and growing the MP problem is. Source/Type: Statement about industry challenges. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentences 4-5 by showing the problem is both unsolved and worsening. This makes any solution (like cartons) more valuable. What We Know So Far: MPs cause bad taste, come from grapes + beetles, can't be removed, problem is spreading Expected Next: How Pickering's research with cartons addresses this unsolvable problem Visualization: MP Problem Status: • Current solutions: None that work • Trend: Getting worse (beetles spreading) • Need: Something that can help remove MPs Reading Strategy Insight: This is classic RC structure - establish a serious, unsolved problem before revealing the solution. We should expect cartons to help with MP removal. |
| Pickering's team investigated how packaging impacts MP concentration by adding three MP compounds to wines in cartons and glass bottles. | What it says: Pickering's researchers tested whether different packaging (cartons vs. glass bottles) affects MP levels by adding MP chemicals to wine in both types of containers. What it does: Describes the research method - directly testing cartons vs. glass for MP effects. Source/Type: Description of research methodology. Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly connects sentences 3 and 6! Sentence 3 said cartons "may have advantages" and sentence 6 said MPs "can't be removed" - now we see Pickering tested whether cartons help remove MPs. What We Know So Far: The research question is clear - do cartons remove MPs better than glass? What We Don't Know Yet: The results of this test Visualization: Pickering's Experiment: Wine + 3 MP compounds → Split into: • Carton containers • Glass bottle containers Test: Which packaging reduces MP levels more? Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - the passage has been building to this moment. All the MP background was setting up this key comparison. |
| Natural cork, synthetic cork, or screw caps sealed the bottles. | What it says: The glass bottles were sealed with different types of closures. What it does: Provides additional detail about the experimental setup. Source/Type: Methodological detail. Connection to Previous Sentences: This adds detail to sentence 7's description of the experiment setup. It's not new complexity - just completing the picture of how bottles were sealed. Visualization: Complete Experimental Setup: Cartons (sealed as normal) Glass bottles with: Natural cork OR Synthetic cork OR Screw caps Reading Strategy Insight: This is methodological detail, not a new concept. We're still in "setup" mode before getting results. |
| After eighteen months, the MPs isobutyl-MP (IBMP), isopropyl-MP (IPMP), and sec-butyl-MP (SBMP) had fallen by 45 percent, 32 percent, and 26 percent, respectively, in the cartoned wine. | What it says: After 18 months, all three types of MPs decreased significantly in the carton-packaged wine. What it does: Provides the key result for cartons - they DO remove MPs effectively. Source/Type: Research findings/data. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the payoff for sentences 3-7! Sentence 3 said cartons "may have advantages" - this proves they do. Sentence 6 said MPs "can't be removed" - cartons actually can remove them. Visualization: Carton Results after 18 months: • IBMP: Decreased 45% • IPMP: Decreased 32% • SBMP: Decreased 26% Overall: All MP types went down substantially Reading Strategy Insight: This is vindication - cartons solve the "unsolvable" MP problem! Expect glass bottle results next for comparison. |
| In bottled wines, IBMP (which produces a "sweet pepper" taste) fell less: 37 percent for synthetic cork, 36 percent for screw cap, and 31 percent for natural cork. | What it says: In glass bottles, IBMP (causes sweet pepper taste) decreased, but not as much as in cartons. Natural cork was worst at removing IBMP. What it does: Shows cartons outperformed glass bottles for IBMP removal and provides sensory context. Source/Type: Research findings with descriptive detail. Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly compares to sentence 9's carton results. Cartons removed 45% of IBMP vs. glass bottles' 31-37% - cartons win clearly. Visualization: IBMP Removal Comparison: Cartons: 45% decrease ← BEST Glass + synthetic cork: 37% decrease Glass + screw cap: 36% decrease Glass + natural cork: 31% decrease ← WORST Reading Strategy Insight: The comparison makes cartons look clearly superior for this MP type. "Fell less" explicitly shows glass bottles are inferior. |
| IPMP (associated with "earthy" flavors) increased 23 percent for natural cork, but fell 7 percent for screw cap and 19 percent for synthetic cork. | What it says: For IPMP (earthy taste), natural cork actually made it worse (23% increase), while other bottle closures reduced it somewhat. What it does: Shows glass bottles performed very poorly for IPMP, especially natural cork. Source/Type: Research findings with sensory context. Connection to Previous Sentences: Comparing to sentence 9: cartons reduced IPMP by 32% while glass bottles ranged from +23% to -19%. Natural cork actually made the problem worse! Visualization: IPMP Results Comparison: Cartons: 32% decrease ← CLEAR WINNER Glass + synthetic cork: 19% decrease Glass + screw cap: 7% decrease Glass + natural cork: 23% INCREASE ← MADE PROBLEM WORSE Reading Strategy Insight: This makes cartons look even better - they're the only packaging that consistently improves the MP problem. |
| SBMP (thought to help determine aroma) rose in all bottled wine. | What it says: SBMP (affects wine aroma) increased in all glass bottle types - meaning the problem got worse. What it does: Shows glass bottles completely failed for SBMP removal. Source/Type: Research finding. Connection to Previous Sentences: Stark contrast with sentence 9: cartons reduced SBMP by 26% while ALL glass bottles made it worse. What We Know So Far: For all 3 MP types, cartons either matched or significantly outperformed glass bottles Visualization: SBMP Results: Cartons: 26% decrease ← ONLY packaging that helped All glass bottles: Increased (made problem worse) Reading Strategy Insight: The pattern is now crystal clear - cartons consistently outperform glass for MP removal. This builds a strong case for the "advantages" mentioned in sentence 3. |
| Pickering speculates that the wine permeates the cartons' inner polythene layers and makes contact with the aluminum, to which MP molecules stick, thus removing them from the wine. | What it says: Pickering thinks cartons work because wine seeps into the polythene layer, touches the aluminum, and MP molecules stick to the aluminum instead of staying in the wine. What it does: Provides a scientific explanation for why cartons outperformed glass bottles. Source/Type: Researcher's hypothesis/speculation. Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains the superior results from sentences 9-12. It's not just that cartons work better - now we understand why. Visualization: How Cartons Remove MPs: Wine → Seeps into polythene layer → Contacts aluminum → MP molecules stick to aluminum → MPs removed from wine Reading Strategy Insight: This mechanism explanation reinforces that cartons' MP-removing ability isn't accidental - it's based on the specific materials used. |
| So adjusting carton composition could help control MP concentrations. | What it says: Since we understand how cartons remove MPs, wine producers could modify carton materials to better control MP levels. What it does: Draws a practical implication from Pickering's explanation. Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion based on research. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 13's mechanism - if aluminum removes MPs, then changing the aluminum or polythene could fine-tune MP removal. Visualization: Future Possibility: Current cartons → Good MP removal Modified carton composition → Potentially even better MP control Reading Strategy Insight: This shows the research has practical applications beyond just proving cartons work. |
| Cartons might thus assume an important role in the market for wines that tend to be high in MPs but will be consumed relatively soon after packaging, before significant oxidation occurs. | What it says: Cartons could be especially useful for wines with high MP levels that will be drunk quickly, avoiding the oxygen/staleness problem. What it does: Identifies the specific market niche where cartons would be most beneficial. Source/Type: Author's market application of research findings. Connection to Previous Sentences: This balances the MP benefits (sentences 9-14) with the oxygen problem from sentence 3. Quick consumption avoids oxygen issues while gaining MP removal benefits. What We Know So Far: Cartons solve MP problems but cause oxygen problems - quick consumption gets the benefits without the drawbacks Visualization: Ideal Carton Use: High-MP wines + Carton packaging + Quick consumption = Benefits without drawbacks Gets: MP removal Avoids: Oxygen staleness Reading Strategy Insight: The passage is now synthesizing all information to show practical applications - this feels like conclusion territory. |
| However, for grand wines—those most favored by connoisseurs—glass bottles with natural corks are likely to remain the packaging of choice. | What it says: Premium wines that connoisseurs love will probably stick with traditional glass bottles and natural corks. What it does: Concludes by acknowledging limits to carton adoption and returning to the opening's connoisseur preferences. Source/Type: Author's prediction about market behavior. Connection to Previous Sentences: This brings us full circle to sentence 1 about connoisseur expectations. Despite cartons' MP advantages, tradition and prestige matter for premium wines. This is a balanced conclusion - cartons have their place, but won't replace glass entirely. Final Understanding: Cartons solve specific problems (MPs) for specific wines (quick consumption), but tradition prevails for premium wines. Visualization: Wine Market Split: • High-MP wines for quick consumption → Cartons (technical benefits) • Grand/premium wines → Glass + natural cork (tradition + connoisseur preference) Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect circular structure - starts with connoisseur preferences, explores alternatives, then acknowledges those preferences still matter for premium wines. The passage doesn't argue for complete replacement, just expanded options. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how research has revealed unexpected benefits of wine cartons compared to traditional glass bottles, specifically in solving a wine quality problem that the industry couldn't fix.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their explanation by walking us through a complete story of scientific discovery:
- First, they establish that wine experts prefer traditional glass bottles with corks, but economic pressures are pushing winemakers toward cheaper carton alternatives that have been criticized for letting in oxygen.
- Next, they introduce a separate wine quality problem - chemicals called MPs that make wine taste bad, come from beetles as well as grapes, can't be removed by winemakers, and are getting worse as beetles spread.
- Then, they describe Pickering's research comparing how cartons versus glass bottles affect MP levels, showing that cartons consistently outperformed glass bottles at removing all three types of MPs, and explain the scientific mechanism behind why cartons work better.
- Finally, they conclude that cartons could be valuable for certain wines that need MP removal and will be consumed quickly, but traditional packaging will still dominate the premium wine market.
Main Point:
While wine cartons have known drawbacks, they actually solve an important wine quality problem that traditional glass bottles cannot fix, giving them a valuable role in specific parts of the wine market rather than being just a cheap alternative.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose - the main goal or overarching reason the author wrote this passage. We need to look at the passage's overall structure and trajectory rather than getting caught up in specific details.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our analysis, we can see the passage follows a clear argumentative structure:
- Traditional expectations vs. economic pressures - Wine connoisseurs prefer glass/cork, but costs are pushing winemakers toward cartons
- Acknowledged problem with cartons - They let in oxygen and create staleness
- Introduction of research showing unexpected benefits - Pickering's study reveals cartons "may have advantages"
- Detailed presentation of research findings - Cartons consistently outperform glass bottles at removing MP compounds that cause bad flavors
- Scientific explanation and practical applications - How cartons work and where they could be valuable
- Balanced conclusion - Cartons have a specific role but won't replace traditional packaging entirely
The passage analysis shows that the author builds a case for cartons by revealing their unexpected ability to solve a wine quality problem that traditional methods cannot address.
Prethinking:
The passage structure reveals the author's primary purpose: to highlight how research has uncovered specific merits of wine cartons (MP removal) and show how this creates possibilities for expanded use in certain market segments, while acknowledging limitations. The author isn't dismissing cartons as inferior alternatives, but rather showing they have genuine technical advantages that could expand their role beyond just being cheap substitutes.
Answer Choices Explained
A
explain why a particular business practice is likely to be abandoned in the future
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't suggest carton packaging will be abandoned - quite the opposite
- The conclusion states cartons "might assume an important role" for certain wines
- The research shows cartons solving problems that glass bottles cannot
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you focus too much on the final sentence about "grand wines" sticking with glass bottles?
→ That sentence acknowledges limits to carton adoption, not abandonment of the practice entirely - Did you interpret the oxygen problem as a reason cartons will fail?
→ The passage shows how quick consumption can avoid oxygen issues while gaining MP removal benefits
B
present various business practices and the circumstances under which each would most likely be employed
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage focuses primarily on one business practice (carton packaging) rather than comparing multiple practices
- While different bottle closures are mentioned, they're part of the research methodology, not separate business practices being evaluated
- The emphasis is on cartons' specific advantages, not on when to use various packaging options
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you interpret the mention of natural cork, synthetic cork, and screw caps as different business practices?
→ These are just variables in Pickering's research design, not the main focus of business practice comparison - Did you think the passage was giving guidance on when to use each packaging type?
→ The passage only briefly mentions cartons' ideal use case at the end - the focus is on proving they have benefits
C
address various objections to a controversial business practice
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage acknowledges the oxygen objection but doesn't spend time addressing "various objections"
- The main focus is on presenting new research findings, not responding to criticisms
- Only one major objection (oxygen seepage) is mentioned, and it's quickly moved past
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you focus on the sentence about cartons being "rightly criticized"?
→ That's just acknowledging one known problem before introducing new positive findings - Did you think the passage was defensive about carton packaging?
→ The tone is more informative and research-focused than defensive
D
highlight the merits and possible expansion of a particular business practice
Why It's Right:
- The passage reveals specific merits of cartons (MP removal) that were previously unknown
- It shows how cartons outperform traditional glass bottles in solving an industry problem
- It discusses practical applications and potential market expansion for cartons in specific segments
- The research provides scientific backing for why cartons could assume "an important role"
Key Evidence: "Cartons might thus assume an important role in the market for wines that tend to be high in MPs but will be consumed relatively soon after packaging, before significant oxidation occurs."
E
describe well-known research findings that have changed the business practices of several companies
Why It's Wrong:
- Pickering's research appears to be relatively new, not "well-known"
- The passage doesn't provide evidence that companies have already changed their practices based on these findings
- The research is presented as revealing new information, not confirming established knowledge
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you assume that since the research is published, it must already be well-known?
→ The passage presents this as new findings that "reveal" previously unknown advantages - Did you think the economic pressures mentioned prove companies have changed practices?
→ Those economic factors drive some carton adoption, but the MP research is separate and newer
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More