Card 0 of 20
The Sagrada Familia has stood, incomplete, as part of the Barcelona skyline since the early phases of its construction in 1882. The project, originally intended to be a cathedral in the gothic style, was begun by the bookseller Joseph Maria Bocabella under the direction of the architect Francisco de Paula del Villar. Del Villar and Bocabella imagined a basilica modeled on the Gothic revival churches Bocabella had seen on trips to Italy. However, Bocabella’s ideal basilica never came to be. In 1883 del Villar resigned from the project, and 30-year old Antoni Gaudi, a young but already well-known architect from Catalonia, took over as lead architect.
Gaudi decided to depart from del Villar’s original Gothic design in favor of a more modern design. The new design was ambitious, featuring eighteen tall spires and four different facades on different sides of the basilica. But work on the new building was slow. Decades passed, and the work was still incomplete. In 1915, Gaudi - now 63 years old - abandoned all other work in favor of dedicating himself to the completion of the monumental church, but progress on the building was still slow. When pressured to speed up work on the monumental building, Gaudi was said to have replied, “My client is not in a hurry.” By the time Gaudi died in 1926, the basilica was only somewhere between 15 and 20 percent complete.
After Gaudi’s death, work stalled between 1936 and 1940 when Civil War broke out in Spain and again as World War II began, leaving the project years behind schedule. During the wars, Catalan anarchists destroyed part of the basilica and the models and designs Gaudi left for the builders, who were forced to reconstruct what plans they could, an arduous and time-consuming process. It took years for the project to get back on track; once it was, it was impossible to know whether additional construction would match Gaudi’s vision.
The Sagrada Familia, one of the most iconic structures in Barcelona, remains unfinished, a constant work-in-progress in the Barcelona skyline. Despite these setbacks, it is open to the public for both religious services and tourism, attracting over three million visitors a year. In fact, tourist entrance fees now pay for annual construction costs. 1
At this point, the author is considering adding the following sentence.
“Architects estimate that the building is now 70 percent complete and that the structure itself should be finished by 2026, one hundred years after Gaudi’s death."
Should the author make this addition here?
One of the best ways to deal with questions that give you the options Yes/Yes/No/No in the answer choices is to ignore the "yes" or "no " question and instead focus on the information that comes after the comma. Determining whether the reasoning is solid is often easier than deciding whether or not a particular sentence should be included. "Yes, because it provides a conclusion that relates to the information given earlier in the passage." correctly states that it provides a conclusion (it is the last sentence) that relates to information given in the passage (that the Sagrada Familia is still unfinished and has been behind schedule since the start). This is the correct answer.
Among the other answers, "yes, because it provides a conclusion that reminds readers of the grandeur of the Sagrada Familia" can be eliminated because there is nothing in this sentence that relates to the grandeur of the Sagrada Familia. "No, because it distracts from the paragraph’s emphasis on construction costs" can be eliminated because the paragraph doesn't talk about construction costs. And "no, because it is irrelevant to the main idea of the passage" can be eliminated because the sentence does relate to the main idea of the passage since it talks about the length of time needed to finish the project.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
For thousands of years, cooking was considered more of a practice than a science. Much of what chefs and food scientists alike knew about cooking came from conventional wisdom rather than carefully designed research. For individuals who considered cooking to be an art rather than a science, this seemed to be for the best; however, for physicist Nicholas Kurti and chemist Herve This, the lack on empirical knowledge around what we eat was not just an affront to science. It was a challenge. In 1988 the pair coined the term “molecular gastronomy,” which they defined as the investigation of the physical and chemical transformation that ingredients undergo during the course of cooking. They argued that if chefs understood these processes, they could produce dishes improved by the findings. 1
At this point, the author is considering adding the following sentence.
"The pair’s philosophy came from the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century, who believed that everything could be categorized and systematized."
Should the author make this addition here?
For questions with answers that lead with "Yes/Yes/No/No," it is often easier to look at the reasoning rather than at whether or not the sentence should be included since it is easier to eliminate answer choices based on reasoning that is incorrect rather than whether the sentence belongs. "Yes, because it explains the origin of the phrase “molecular gastronomy”." can be eliminated because the sentence does not explain the origin of the phrase "molecular gastronomy". "Yes, because it reinforces a claim that is made earlier in the paragraph." can be eliminated because it does not address a claim made earlier in the paragraph. "No, because it is not relevant to the focus of the paragraph." is true - this sentence is not relevant to the main focus of the paragraph. "No, because it distracts from the paragraph’s focus on early experiments in molecular gastronomy." can be eliminated because this paragraph does not discuss earlier experiments in molecular gastronomy.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
One of the most influential niche constructors is the earthworm, an organism found almost everywhere on the planet. 1 A scientist only concerned with evolution would predict that, in order to live on land, earthworms would have to significantly change. Earthworms didn’t change their physiology a great amount, however, instead, they changed the soil to make it more like the ocean in order to survive. Land with earthworms is less compacted, is more nutrient rich, and better mixed than land without them – leading to monumental changes in the ecosystem.
The author is considering adding the following sentence.
Earthworms were originally aquatic organisms that were ill-equipped to survive on land.
Should the author make this addition?
Whenever the SAT gives you answer choices in the form of "yes/no because", you should turn your attention to the reasoning given for each answer choice since it's easier to determine whether the reason is correct than it is to determine whether or not the sentence should be included. "Yes, because it explains the prediction made in the next sentence." correctly states that the sentence explains why the prediction in the next sentence is there. "Yes, because it adds information about the roles of earthworms as niche creators." can be eliminated because the sentence does not explain the role of earthworms as niche creators. "No, because it distracts from the discussion on niche construction. " can be eliminated because it doesn't distract from the discussion of niche construction since it talks about why earthworms need to be niche constructors. "No, because the author does not further address why this fact is important." can be eliminated because the next sentence does explain why this fact is important.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The following is an excerpt of an article from Popular Science, initially published in 2017.
Since their inception, Rorschach inkblots—named after Hermann Rorschach, the Swiss psychoanalyst who invented them—have been known to confuse the visual cortex. We tend to see what we want to see in them. And although their use in psychology has been debunked (whether you see a butterfly or a dancing clown in an image is not a reliable indication of your mental state), why we see different things at all remains a puzzle.
The idea for the new study came about because physicist Richard Taylor is developing bionic eyes to cure blindness in people who have had diseases of the retina. \[1\]
To understand why Rorschach inkblots have this enigmatic effect, Taylor and his team at the University of Oregon took lots of blots and analyzed them to see if they were fractals. Fractals are patterns that repeat themselves across different scales.
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
“In order to do that,” said Taylor, “we have to understand what normal vision is doing.”
Should the writer make this addition here?
With “yes because ___” / “no because ___” questions, the SAT has provided us with an opportunity to eliminate on two different bases! Here, we want to determine whether the sentence in question should be added, but also understand contextually *why.* In this case, the addition would be valuable to its surrounding context, as it addresses how the study (what came before) relates to the concept of bionic eyes (the context immediately before). Both of our “no because ___” answers can be eliminated, as the addition absolutely makes sense in its context, and the option “Yes, because it helps answer why Rorschach blots look different to different people” doesn’t work because, while the study might provide some of the relevant context to this answer, the sentence in question does not. Thus, “Yes, because it provides context to how the study and bionic eyes are related” is the only viable answer choice, as it addresses the relevancy of the sentence before and the reference to the bionic eye to the rest of the passage excerpt and corresponding study.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The following is an excerpt of the book Women and Women’s Work, initially published in 2012.
There is general agreement among today’s scientists that the scientific work of women has been historically undervalued. For example, Rosalind Franklin, a British physicist, was responsible for capturing the images that informed our modern understanding of the structures of DNA. \[1\] Her contributions were overshadowed by the work of James Watson and Francis Crick, who relied on her models in assembling their famous double-helix model, but neglected to provide her sufficient credit.
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
DNA is a complex molecule composed of nucleotide base pairs which transmits genetic information within living cells.
Should the writer make this addition here?
With questions that ask about adding sentences, answers can be eliminated on two bases—incorrect decision, and incorrect reasoning. We need to decide whether the sentence should be added as well as why or why not. In this example, we can eliminate the “Yes” choice that mentions the “complexity of DNA’s structure,” as this is not the point of the paragraph. We can also eliminate the other “Yes” choice, as the molecular structure of DNA has no connection to why Watson and Crick didn’t credit Franklin. Similarly, the “No” choice which suggests the sentence “undermines the paragraph’s claim about Franklin’s contributions” is incorrect, as the details of DNA’s structure are unrelated to the claim about her work. The correct choice is “No, because it distracts from the paragraph’s point that women’s scientific work is undervalued,” as it correctly identifies the paragraph’s point and notes that the details in the sentence have little relevance to the paragraph as a whole.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The following is an excerpt of an article from Energy & Environmental Science, initially published in 2015.
It wasn’t evident from Stecker’s investigations that “fracking”—shortened from hydraulic fracturing—was correlated with unusual seismic activity. “In assembling our data, we drew from seismometers in the vicinity of more than 400 fracking sites worldwide, including almost 200 in the United States,” Stecker said. \[1\] “We found no significant uptick in seismic activity near fracking sites, much to our surprise,” Stecker said. She also noted, however, that earthquakes aren’t the only potential danger of fracking. “There are claims about groundwater contamination and air pollution that have yet to be sufficiently investigated,” she warned.
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
Seismometers are a tool used to measure large underground movements, like those caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity.
Should the writer make this addition here?
With questions that ask about adding sentences, answers can be eliminated on two bases—incorrect decision, and incorrect reasoning. We need to decide whether the sentence should be added as well as why or why not. In this example, we can eliminate the “No” choice which mentions the “steps involved in fracking,” as these aren’t mentioned at any point in the paragraph. We can also eliminate the remaining “No” answer, as an explanation of seismometers doesn’t contradict Stecker’s description of her data collection methods, which relied on seismometers. Furthermore, we can eliminate the “Yes” answer which posits that the description “supports Stecker’s claim that fracturing often causes earthquakes,” as this is the opposite of Stecker’s claim. The correct choice is “Yes, because it helps to explain a technical term used in the paragraph,” as it correctly states that the sentence defines the term “seismometer” with which readers might otherwise be unfamiliar.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The following is an excerpt from the book J.D. Salinger: Beneath the Stories, initially published in 2006.
Salinger was responsible for, among other works, the collections Franny and Zooey and Nine Stories and the widely acclaimed novel The Catcher and the Rye. \[1\] Despite his notoriety during his lifetime, however, Salinger avoided contact with the outside world whenever possible. His retreat from the public eye began in 1951, soon after the publication of The Catcher in the Rye, and continued until his death in 2010. During those decades, he gave only a handful of interviews, including one published in 1971 usually described as his “last interview.”
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
It features Holden Caulfield, a teenager who recounts the story of his expulsion from a Pennsylvania boarding school.
Should the writer make this addition here?
With questions that ask about adding sentences, answers can be eliminated on two bases—incorrect decision, and incorrect reasoning. We need to decide whether the sentence should be added as well as why or why not. In this example, we can eliminate the “Yes” answer which mentions “details about Salinger’s own adolescence,” as the sentence describes a character Salinger created, not the author himself. We can also eliminate the remaining “Yes” answer, as a description of the premise of The Catcher in the Rye doesn’t help to show that Salinger was famous. We can also eliminate the “No” answer which mentions “parallels drawn between Salinger and his characters,” as such parallels are entirely absent from the paragraph. The correct choice is “No, because it blurs the paragraph’s focus on Salinger’s reclusive nature,” which correctly notes that details of The Catcher in the Rye are irrelevant to a paragraph which discusses Salinger’s personal life.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The following is an excerpt of an article from American Theatre, initially published in 2012.
The modern musical, as enjoyed by millions of yearly theatregoers in New York, London, and across the world, has its foundations in the work of composers Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II. Their musical Oklahoma!, premiering on Broadway in 1943, is often cited as the first real entry in the “Golden Age” of musical theater. \[1\] Oklahoma! was celebrated by critics and audiences alike for its libretto, or “book,” which served to weave its songs together into a coherent story. The duo went on to write nearly a dozen more “book” musicals, most of which were critical and commercial successes.
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
Previous musicals had typically featured many popular songs with little connection to one another.
Should the writer make this addition here?
With questions that ask about adding sentences, answers can be eliminated on two bases—incorrect decision, and incorrect reasoning. We need to decide whether the sentence should be added as well as why or why not. In this example, the “No” choice which mentions “modern musicals” can be eliminated, as they are by no means the paragraph’s focus, even if they are mentioned in the introductory sentence. The remaining “No” choice, which describes the writers as the “first duo to write a musical,” is also incorrect, as this is not a claim made elsewhere in the paragraph. The “Yes” answer which mentions that the writers were “overrated” has, similarly, no basis in textual evidence, as the writers are described as being critically successful, but there is no suggestion that this praise was unearned. Accordingly, the remaining “Yes” answer, which claims that the sentence shows what makes Oklahoma! unique, is accurate, as the sentence explains what musicals were like before Oklahoma!’s innovations.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The following is an excerpt from the book Psychology Explained: Breaking Down the Brain, initially published in 2009.
Confirmation bias is the tendency by which people interpret new information in a way that supports previously held beliefs. Psychologists have examined the phenomenon in a wide variety of contexts. \[1\] In one experiment, researchers presented subjects with self-described “strong” or “very strong” political beliefs with a series of claims about a particularly contentious politician. Half of the claims were positive, supporting the politician, while half were negative, condemning the politician. Later, when quizzed about the claims they had heard, subjects were far better at recalling those claims which aligned with their existing opinion on the politician, while they were seldom able to recall the others.
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
Confirmation bias is believed to arise at or near adolescence, although it has not been rigorously studied in children.
Should the writer make this addition here?
With questions that ask about adding sentences, answers can be eliminated on two bases—incorrect decision, and incorrect reasoning. We need to decide whether the sentence should be added as well as why or why not. In this example, the “Yes” choice which states that “confirmation bias cannot be studied in an experimental setting” can be eliminated, as the example which follows provides an explicit experimental demonstration of the phenomenon. The remaining “Yes” choice can also be eliminated, as the sentence makes a claim about the ages at which the phenomenon arises, but there is no discussion of why this might make it interesting to psychologists. The “No” choice which mentions “methods to counteract confirmation bias” mischaracterizes the paragraph, which provides an example of a study on the phenomenon, but does not make any suggestions about means to counteract it. The remaining “No” choice, however, is correct, as the detail provided in the sentence is, indeed, irrelevant to the discussion which follows, wherein age is never mentioned.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Evolutionary biologists have long believed that Canis lupus familiaris, the modern dog, is a direct evolutionary descendant of Canis lupus, the gray wolf. Recent developments in genomic sequencing have helped substantiate this belief, as the genetic differences which distinguish dogs from wolves can now be catalogued and studied at the smallest possible scale. \[1\] Data extrapolated from genomic sequencing now suggests that dogs were domesticated approximately 15,000 years ago.
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
Archaeological evidence has long indicated that dogs, as we know them today, have existed for at least 14,000 years.
Should the writer make this addition here?
With questions that ask about adding sentences, answers can be eliminated on two bases—incorrect decision, and incorrect reasoning. We need to decide whether the sentence should be added as well as why or why not. In this example, the “No” choice which mentions the “steps involved in genomic sequencing” is incorrect, as discussion of the details of the process is entirely absent from the paragraph. The remaining “No” answer, which alludes to a claim that dogs and wolves have “negligible genetic differences,” has no basis in evidence, as the paragraph mentions that these differences exist, but does not suggest that they are negligible. The “Yes” choice which mentions an explanation for why “humans were not involved in the domestication of wolves” can also be thrown out, as the information presented in the sentence has no connection to this claim, and the paragraph makes no mention of domestication. Accordingly, the “Yes” choice with which we’re left is correct, as it correctly identifies how the detail of “archaeological evidence” connects to the claim about genomic sequencing data which follows.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
With increasing frequency, those who hope to work professionally in computer science are forgoing the traditional route to a career in tech—enrolling at a university in hopes eventually of securing an internship—in favor of a more modern approach. \[1\] Much instructional material for computer science is available for free online, and several websites have emerged offering accelerated courses in coding at a fraction of the cost of a university education. A growing number of those hired by tech giants like Google and Facebook each year have no “formal” background in computer science, but nonetheless perform at or above the level of their college-educated coworkers.
At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has one of the best computer science programs in the country, offering concentrations in a number of specific technical areas.
Should the writer make this addition here?
With questions that ask about adding sentences, answers can be eliminated on two bases—incorrect decision, and incorrect reasoning. We need to decide whether the sentence should be added as well as why or why not. In this example, the “Yes” choice which mentions “modern trends in technology” can be eliminated, as the paragraph focuses on trends in the path to a career in technology, but makes no mention of trends in technology itself. The remaining “Yes” choice which claims that the detail explains “Google and Facebook” employing graduates misunderstands a supporting detail in the paragraph, which actually claims that tech giants have begun hiring those without university educations with more frequency. The “No” choice which mentions a claim that “universities should be free” is entirely unsupported, as the paragraph does not advocate for free college, but rather explains that free alternatives to college are becoming increasingly popular. The remaining “No” choice correctly notes that the detail in the sentence is irrelevant and unnecessary to the paragraph’s claim about alternatives to a university education.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The pair brought scientific thinking and equipment to the kitchen, challenging perceptions about what belonged in the lab and what belonged in a chef ’s kitchen. For example, an early experiment in pie baking involved injecting pies with a syringe full of liquid after baking in order to preserve the crust. Other experiments involved creating meringue (cooked whipped egg whites with sugar) in a vacuum chamber and a “reverse” baked Alaska (ice cream topped with meringue) with the hot merengue on the inside and the ice cream on the outside. Although the experiments themselves might not have been useful to the home cook, 1 they were interesting for scientists.
Which choice most logically completes the sentence?
Whenever the SAT asks you to logically complete a sentence or thought, you are often going to need to complete a comparison or a contrast set up earlier in the sentence. In this case, the word "although" indicates that you need to have a phrase that contrasts with the idea that the experiments weren't useful to home chefs. If we leave the sentence as is, it may be true, but it isn't that comparison."They did give insights into the science of cooking that improved recipes and techniques for cooks everywhere." does set up that comparison, since the outcomes of the experiments were useful to home chefs even if the experiments themselves were not. This is correct. "They did answer many questions that This and Herve had about cooking." and "there were other experiments soon to follow." can be eliminated because they don't complete the comparison.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Since 1988, the mission of molecular gastronomy has shifted. Kurti and This originally sought to investigate “kitchen old wives’ tales,” invent new recipes, improve old ones, and make the case to the public that science was a useful part of everyday life. Even if their experiments weren’t intended to be replicated in home kitchens, they were intended to encourage home cooks to experiment. Today, molecular gastronomists seek to explore the social, artistic, and technical aspects of food preparation. Some have argued that this shift in focus, along with the fact that techniques in molecular gastronomy have so far surpassed what any home cook could do, means that molecular gastronomy has lost 1 the ability to impact homemade food.
For this question, you are looking for an answer choice that gets rid of redundancy within the sentence and that maintains a logical meaning within the sentence. Choices "its ability to impact and influence how the world cooks at home." and "its ability to impact how the world’s domestic cooks cook at home." can both be eliminated because they contain redundant structures ("impact and influence" and "domestic... at home", respectively). NO CHANGE isn't logical. The field of molecular gastronomy doesn't affect homemade food. It affects how people cook. Choice "its ability to impact how the world cooks at home." correctly shows that molecular gastronomy affects the process of cooking and is not redundant.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
One of the most influential niche constructors is the earthworm, an organism found almost everywhere on the planet. A scientist only concerned with evolution would predict that, in order to live on land, earthworms would have to significantly change. Earthworms didn’t change their physiology a great amount, however; instead, they changed the soil to make it more like the ocean in order to survive. Land with earthworms is less compacted, is more nutrient rich, and is better mixed than land without them – 1 leading to monumental changes in the ecosystem.
Niche constructors are particularly important in colonizing new environments. One of the easiest ways to measure this effect on evolution has been in the effect that the number of earthworms has on soil fertility, a measure of how hospitable an environment is to plant growth. Even the least fertile soil has around 62 worms per square meter, and as the number of worms increases so does soil fertility. As worms move through the different layers of soil, they eat, digest, and excrete massive amounts of organic matter. They leave their excretions behind in the form of nutrient-rich droppings known as casings. As these casings decompose, they release nutrients into the soil. This process not only moves nutrients from one layer of the soil to another but also converts the nutrients to forms that plants can absorb and process more easily. Because it is easier for plants to get the proper nutrients, plants don’t have to invest time and energy into making better root systems to gather nutrients. As a result, plants have, over time, lost some of these mechanisms – a form of evolution.
Which of the following best supports the point developed in this paragraph?
In order to conclude which choice best concludes the paragraph, you need to understand the overall context of the paragraph. The paragraph is all about how and why the worms change their environment in order to survive. The only choice that talks about why earthworms change the environment is "resulting in a moist environment in which the worms can thrive." As it is in the text is too vague since it's already been established that the worms change their environments. Choice "all of which make the environment more suitable for plants." is more in line with the next paragraph, which discusses the effect of earthworm engineering on plants. And choice "all from a tiny organism not much larger than a human hand.", while catchy, does not address anything that is discussed in the paragraph.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
One of the most influential niche constructors is the earthworm, an organism found almost everywhere on the planet. A scientist only concerned with evolution would predict that, in order to live on land, earthworms would have to significantly change. Earthworms didn’t change their physiology a great amount, however; instead, they changed the soil to make it more like the ocean in order to survive. Land with earthworms is less compacted, is more nutrient rich, and is better mixed than land without them – resulting in a moist environment in which the worms can thrive.
1 Niche constructors are particularly important in colonizing new environments. One of the easiest ways to measure this effect on evolution has been in the effect that the number of earthworms has on soil fertility, a measure of how hospitable an environment is to plant growth. Even the least fertile soil has around 62 worms per square meter, and as the number of worms increases so does soil fertility. As worms move through the different layers of soil, they eat, digest, and excrete massive amounts of organic matter. They leave their excretions behind in the form of nutrient-rich droppings known as casings. As these casings decompose, they release nutrients into the soil. This process not only moves nutrients from one layer of the soil to another but also converts the nutrients to forms that plants can absorb and process more easily. Because it is easier for plants to get the proper nutrients, plants don’t have to invest time and energy into making better root systems to gather nutrients. As result, plants have, over time, lost some of these mechanisms – a form of evolution.
Which of the following provides the most effective transition from the previous paragraph?
In order to provide an effective transition between the two paragraphs, you need to know what the previous paragraph was about and what the current paragraph is about. The previous paragraph discusses one of the factors that allow earthworms to be considered niche creators - that they significantly change their environment. The current paragraph discusses another - that they must affect the evolution of another organism. As it is in the passage (NO CHANGE) and "Earthworms aren’t alone in their capacity as niche constructors: beavers do the same." and can both be quickly eliminated because they don't address either of these challenges. Between choice "To be considered true niche constructors, however, earthworms must change the environment in such a way as to alter the evolution of another species." and Earthworms’ most important role is to make soil more hospitable to plants, microbes, and other animals that might not otherwise do well in an arid environment", the former at first seems insufficient because it doesn't clearly address the previous paragraph. However, note that it does call back to the previous paragraph by saying that earthworms need to do one more thing before they are real niche creators. "Earthworms’ most important role is to make soil more hospitable to plants, microbes, and other animals that might not otherwise do well in an arid environment." only continues to discuss how they change the environment with no mention of the main idea of the paragraph to come.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The public’s perception of archaeologists has, for years, been colored by depictions of the profession in movie franchises like Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, and The Mummy. However popular these movies are, they– like movies that depict any other profession – don’t necessarily reflect what archaeologists actually do. While fighting supernatural forces and foiling nefarious plans does make for a better movie, 1 archaeologists are interesting people.
Whenever you are asked to complete a sentence without instruction as to what the test is looking for, you want to look for logic and for concision. The paragraph discusses the fact that movies don't necessarily reflect the job of real archaeologists. That implies that the contrast in this sentence should be between what archaeologists actually do and what they do in the movies. Since what they do in the movies is already addressed, the correct answer will reflect real- life archaeology. The only answer that does this is "the primary work of archaeology is in research and preservation", which gives an example of what archaeologists do. NO CHANGE and "box office numbers don’t always reflect this fact" don't address real-life archaeology and choice "movies don’t reflect what archaeologists actually do" is just a repetition of a phrase from earlier in the paragraph.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
This excerpt is adapted from David Brent, “The Method: Stanislavski in Practice.”
Stanislavski was described as hackneyed and vapid by some of his harshest critics. Utilizing his extensive experience as a director and a performer, he developed the first formal curriculum for aspiring actors. His exercises equipped students with techniques to embody the internal and external characteristics of real and imagined people. In other words, Stanislavski taught his students how to bring characters to life.
Which choice most effectively introduces the information which follows in the paragraph?
When asked to choose which sentence most effectively introduces a paragraph, examine the remainder of the paragraph to determine which choice aligns most closely with the information which follows. The body of the paragraph focuses on Stanislavski’s experience developing a curriculum for acting students, so responses which focus on his “reimaginings of Shakespeare,” the “hackneyed and vapid” state ascribed to him by his critics, or his “declining physical and mental health,” though they may be accurate, do not relate to the information contained in the rest of the paragraph. However, the choice which mentions “education” and Stanislavski’s belief that it was “essential to the future of his craft” effectively introduces the details to follow.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
This excerpt is adapted from Kara Flanagan, “An Introduction to Linguistics.”
Linguists may specialize in any number of elements of language. While some examine morphology, the composition of individual words, others may study syntax, the structure of entire sentences. Those who study semantics or pragmatics, on the other hand, focus on the meanings of individual words, and how they might change depending on the context. Some linguists, known as phonologists, instead turn their attention to the speech sounds which make up spoken languages. Altogether, linguists have been responsible for the preservation of thousands of endangered languages.
Which choice provides the most effective conclusion for the paragraph?
When asked to choose which sentence presents the best conclusion, focus on the preceding information to understand what the remainder of the paragraph has discussed. The paragraph begins by suggesting that there are numerous “elements of language” to which linguists turn their attention, and goes on to name and define several of them, including morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and phonology. The present choice, which focuses on the “preservation” of “endangered languages,” has no connection to the remainder of the paragraph. The choice of mentioning the “populations” studies by linguists also makes a leap from the subjects discussed to groups that have yet to be mentioned. The choice which suggests that linguists might “never learn to speak” their studied languages, even if it may be true, doesn’t present an effective or relevant conclusion. However, the choice which mentions an “array of subfields” within linguistics accurately reflects the substance of the preceding paragraph while also drawing an effective comparison between these “subfields” and languages themselves.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
This excerpt is adapted from Kirk Powell, Studies in Sports.
In her study, L’Tainen wanted to focus primarily on those sports observers who had a strong understanding of the game, but had never seriously played it. “It’s often claimed that watching someone else perform a complex task can be as useful as practicing it ourselves,” L’Tainen wrote. “Here, I wanted to put that claim to the test.” L’Tainen assembled her group of sports fanatics from her own city, Philadelphia, through a series of online listings. Philadelphia has more than a dozen professional sports teams, including two baseball teams. Once she brought all the subjects to one place, the real fun could begin.
Which choice provides the most relevant detail?
When asked to select the most relevant detail, examine the surrounding information to understand which choice fits best in the particular context. Here, the sentence in question is preceded by a description of L’Tainen’s research objective, and the beginning of an explanation of her methodology for finding subjects. The sentence is followed by another mention of those subjects. It makes little sense to focus on L’Tainen’s personal life here, so the choice discussing her upbringing “in the suburbs” is altogether irrelevant, and even the choice which focuses on L’Tainen’s own experience as a “passionate softball player” distracts from the discussion of the experimental design. Similarly, a detail about Philadelphia’s “professional sports teams,” though related to the city in which the experiment is being conducted, has no connection to her approach to assembling subjects. Only the choice which expands upon her experimental methodology, discussing the listings and the “sort of person she was seeking,” expands upon the design of the experiment in a relevant manner.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
This excerpt is adapted from Rachel Kaplan, “A Day in the Life of Lennon—McCartney”.
The Beatles are often regarded by historians, critics, and listeners as one of the best recording groups of all time. Formed in Liverpool, England in 1960, they wrote and recorded some of the most popular songs of the twentieth century and ushered in a new age of innovation within Western popular music. At the creative heart of the group were John Lennon and Paul McCartney, together comprising the songwriting partnership “Lennon—McCartney,” whose songs made up the vast majority of the Beatles’ catalog. Interestingly, even when one of the two composers worked alone, the final product bore both of their names—the result of a handshake agreement the two had made at the start of their collaboration. Accordingly, hits like “Yesterday” and “I Am the Walrus,” written independently by Paul and John, respectively, are nonetheless credited jointly to Lennon—McCartney.
Which choice provides the most relevant detail?
When asked to select the most relevant detail, examine the surrounding information to understand which choice fits best in a particular context. Here, the sentence in question is preceded by a brief introduction to the Beatles and a mention of its central creative force, the Lennon—McCartney writing team. It is followed by a sentence that gives examples of Beatles songs written independently by Paul and John and explains that both writers still received credit for the compositions. The choice which mentions the Beatles’ producer “George Martin” and his implementation of “instrumentation or special effects” interrupts a discussion of the specific partnership being discussed. Similarly, the choice which discusses the contributions of “George Harrison and Ringo Starr” blurs the discussion of Paul and John. The choice describing their method of writing “six or seven songs” is more relevant, but doesn’t help to explain the unusual crediting described in the next sentence. The existing sentence, however, which mentions a “handshake agreement” regarding their collaboration, remains on topic while also contextualizing the explanatory detail to follow, and is the best choice.
Compare your answer with the correct one above