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 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
(1) Cowboys have long been a symbol in American society. (2) On the one hand, they represent American strength, adventurousness, and indefatigability. (3) But they also call up images of oppression, racism, and exploitation. (4) However, both of these romanticized views of cowboys betray the dull routine and everyday realities of the lives that many cowboys lived.
(5) Some cowboys worked at the same farms for much of their lives, while others periodically moved cattle from place to place without ever participating in a gun fight or being harangued by unexpected or hidden enemies. (6) Today, their figurative descendants can still be found living in agricultural areas, working hard to ensure that steady supplies of milk, meat and other agricultural products find their ways to stores and your dining room table.
Which of the following is the best option for combining Sentences 2 and 3?
Using a semicolon to connect the two clauses is the best option here. In the sentence's original form, the second sentence is actually a fragment because it is a dependent clause because it begins with the conjunction "but." If the period at the end of the first sentence were changed to a comma, it would be correct to use a conjunction like "but"; however, the answer choice that does this uses the conjunction "because," which suggests that the sentences are related as cause and effect when this isn't the case. Of the two answer choices that introduce a semi-colon, one adds the extraneous word "moreover"; the simpler option is the correct one.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
(1) The sport of lacrosse, while perhaps not as widely popular today in the United States as baseball or football, is far older. (2) These games served many important cultural functions. (3) They were used to settle disputes between tribes, as festival events, and to train young men to become warriors and hunters.
(4) Hundreds of men and women from rival tribes or villages would gather to play at once. (5) The playing field was sometimes several miles long. (6) The original game was very different from the organized sport played today. (7) A single game would be played from dawn until sunset, and be followed by dancing and feasting.
(8) Modern, standardized versions of lacrosse started to be played in the 1850s and soon became very popular throughout Canada and the United States. (9) For over a century, it has been one of the most widely played sports in high schools in both nations.
Which is the best way to combine Sentences 4 and Sentence 5?
Simplicity is the best option here. Keep the sentence direct, eliminate redundancies, and complicate the sentence structure as little as possible. The correct answer is "Hundreds of men and women from rival tribes would gather at once to play on fields sometimes several miles long."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
(1) Kabuki performances first appeared in 1603, when a woman named Izumo no Okuni began performing a new style of drama and dance routines outside of Kyoto. (2) This new form of entertainment quickly got popular throughout Japan.
(3) Kabuki was known for its extravagant costumes and elaborate make-up. (4) The stage was what really set it apart from other forms of theater at the time. (5) It included a walkway protruding from the stage out through the audience. (6) Actors would use this walkway to make surprise entrances. (7) More advanced features were added, such as rotating stages and trapdoors to lift actors onto or down from the stage almost instantly. (8) All of these were used to create dramatic emphasis.
Which is the best way to combine Sentences 3 and 4?
The conjunction should illustrate the contrast between the two sentences. While "however" is a contrasting conjunction, in context, it would need to begin a new sentence after a semicolon.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Which is the best way to combine Sentences 2 and 3?
\[1\] State-level legislative attempts to regulate immigration, both legal and illegal, over the previous twenty years reflect the diverse perspectives of multiple groups. \[2\] Activist groups contributed their own perspectives toward immigration legislation. \[3\] These activist groups included many diverse voices. \[4\] Ultimately, however, the majority of proposed legislation regarding immigration in Arkansas failed to become law and most proposed immigration legislation died in committee before reaching a floor vote.
The best way to combine the two sentences is "Activist groups that included many diverse voices contributed their own perspectives toward immigration legislation." This combination reflects the main point of both sentences.
The other sentence options were all more ambiguous and/or awkwardly phrased:
The sentence combination "Their own perspectives toward immigration legislation were contributed, including many diverse voices" implies that the names of activist groups are pieces of immigration legislation.
Another incorrect answer, "Activist groups contributed their own perspectives toward immigration legislation like many diverse voices," also implies that activist groups are pieces of immigration legislation.
Another incorrect option, "Many diverse voices were perspectives contributed toward immigration legislation from activist groups," does not make sense because it implies that each of the activist groups were "perspectives."
"Many diverse voice perspectives were contributed toward immigration legislation by activist groups" is not the best answer because "Diverse voice perspectives" does not make sense and the entire sentence is uses the passive voice.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Inspired by storylines that would come to him in dreams, Lord Bennington would stage one-man plays, his audience enjoying the show.
The original statement is grammatically incorrect because "audience" and "show" should be plural. Also, "his audience enjoying the show" makes the sentence into a run-on. The correct answer is concise and not awkward.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Every person in the room appreciating the jokes by the performers.
The sentence as written is actually a fragment, as it does not contain a proper verb. The word "appreciating" in the sentence is a gerund, or a verb form that can function as anoun. The correct answer will use a full verb form, as "Every person in the room appreciated the jokes by the performers" does.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Religious texts often appear quite difficult to understand, being contradictions of themselves.
The underlined phrase in the sentence is awkwardly worded, which makes the sentence itself difficult to understand. The "religious texts" contain contradictions, a meaning not conveyed properly by the sentence. "Contradicting themselves" is the clearest, most appropriate choice among the answers.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Replace the underlined portion with the answer choice that results in a sentence that is clear, precise, and meets the requirements of standard written English.
The boy having been the one who found the letter, received the reward.
The underlined portion of the sentence is convoluted and awkward, which makes its meaning difficult to understand. The same idea can be found in a much simpler form. "The boy who found the letter" is the best choice among the answers.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Replace the underlined portion with the answer choice that results in a sentence that is clear, precise, and meets the requirements of standard written English.
Authors often find struggle when attempting to provide details of their characters' appearances.
The underlined portion of the sentence is both awkwardly phrased and unclear in its meaning. The word choices need to be cleaned up to appropriately convey the meaning of the sentence. "Struggle when attempting to provide" gives the same meaning as "find struggle when attempting to provide" in a more straightforward manner, and is the best choice among the answers.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
River currents become stronger as a river grows wider, danger becoming more likely.
The underlined portion of the sentence is a referential phrase that does not clearly fit into the sentence's meaning. The same meaning to the sentence can be given with a more cohesive word choice. "Becoming more dangerous" is the only answer choice that appropriately refers to the preceding part of the sentence and is grammatically correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
All people choose their own religious denomination when they have been adults.
The underlined phrase is very awkwardly worded, and the use of the past perfect form "have been" is confusing. The phrase needs to be cleaned up for better clarity of meaning. "When they are adults" is the best choice among the answers.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Replace the underlined portion with the answer choice that results in a sentence that is clear, precise, and meets the requirements of standard written English.
People spend a lifetime trying to finding happiness of life.
The underlined phrase is extremely awkwardly worded, and can be cleaned up quite easily. "To find happiness" is the cleanest expression of the sentiment of the phrase's meaning.
Compare your answer with the correct one above