Questions 1–5.

Questions 6–10. Select the TWO correct answer choices.

Questions 11–15 are based on the passage below.

Sociologists have long debated whether living in a large, dense city fundamentally alters social behavior, a question first given systematic treatment in an influential early-twentieth-century essay that argued urban life produces a distinctive psychological orientation: a blasé attitude, an emotional reserve adopted as protection against the sensory overload of constant, superficial contact with strangers. This "urban alienation" thesis dominated sociological thinking on cities for decades, portraying urbanites as isolated individuals surrounded by people yet fundamentally disconnected from them. More recent research complicates this picture considerably. Detailed ethnographic studies of dense urban neighborhoods have documented extensive networks of mutual aid, informal surveillance ("eyes on the street," in one influential formulation), and community ties that rival or exceed those found in smaller towns, suggesting that apparent anonymity in public spaces coexists with rich private and semi-private social networks largely invisible to a casual observer. The apparent contradiction may be resolved by distinguishing between weak ties, the superficial interactions with strangers on a crowded street that gave rise to the original alienation thesis, and strong ties, the family, friend, and neighbor relationships that continue to flourish within urban density; a city dweller may be simultaneously blasé toward the former and richly embedded within the latter, meaning both classical descriptions of urban life capture something real without contradicting each other.

Questions 16–20 are based on the passage below.

Gentrification, the process by which an influx of wealthier residents transforms a historically lower-income neighborhood, is frequently framed in public discourse as an unambiguous story of displacement and loss, and there is substantial evidence supporting this framing: rising rents can force long-time residents to relocate, often to areas with fewer amenities and weaker social networks built over decades. Some housing researchers, however, caution against treating displacement as gentrification's only or even primary demographic effect. Longitudinal studies tracking specific households over time have found that outright displacement rates in gentrifying neighborhoods are, in many cases, no higher than in comparable non-gentrifying poor neighborhoods, where residents also move frequently due to eviction, housing quality, or economic hardship unrelated to neighborhood change. This finding does not mean gentrification is harmless; researchers taking this view generally still document real costs, including rising costs of living for those who remain, loss of neighborhood-specific cultural institutions, and psychological effects of watching one's community change around oneself even without being forced to leave physically. The disagreement, then, is less about whether gentrification causes harm than about which harms are most significant and how public policy resources should be allocated in response — a debate with direct consequences for whether municipal intervention should prioritize preventing displacement specifically or address a broader set of harms experienced by residents who remain in place.