<p>For #8, the answer is clearly appreciation. No where in the passage or the line does the author express awe at anything. Look at this way - if the tone was awe, it would've hit you in the face, unmistakably. Awe would've been "HAL was an amazingly accurate prediction of future computing potential that demonstrates the characteristic foresight and genius that Stanley Kubrick is universally renowned for." That passage did not express awe.</p>
<p>For #11: Here you really want to avoid what I call convoluted logic. Most people have a tendency to draw more from a reading than what is explicitly stated (these are connotations - and most great writers play upon them for poetic effect). But on SAT passages you strictly want DEnotation, or what is literally said (unless they specifically ask you for connotation - which is rare, but can happen). The same thing happens when you look at answer choices; you think "gee, it could be A or E, since they basically <em>con</em>note the same things. Yet A & E are really quite different, and if you verify them against the text, you will see this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"A condolatory smile, capping this enumeration, materialized on his lips; the letter was so inconsonant with the simplest precepts of strategy that it elicited a kind of pity, mingled with contempt and dry amusement."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For A, we want to check the text for "Cynical Skepticism" and "Comical Self-Pity." First off, no where in the sentence does it say he was skeptical about the letter. No where does he doubt the letters statements, or question its authenticity. So right there you can toss it. But let's check "Comical self-pity." Here's where they try to fool you, because the word "pity" is in the sentence. However, that pity is not directed at himself - he mentions "the letter so inconsonant with the simplest precepts of strategy that it elicited a kind of pity." A pity for who? Pity for the person who sent the letter that he thought was so inconsonant with the simplest precepts of strategy - not him, but his boss. So it doesn't say he feels bad for himself. You can toss it.</p>
<p>For E: Condescending Sympathy and Amused Scorn. Does he have condescending sympathy? Let's look. We find the text says that he feels PITY for his boss, who he thinks has no idea of strategy. Hence, it is also condescending. </p>
<p>Is there amused scorn? Right where it says "contempt and dry amusement." Contempt is a synonym for scorn, and look - they even have "amusement" repeated verbatim in the sentence. Now you know E is the perfect answer.</p>
<p>For #9: This is another example of avoiding convoluted logic and not drawing more than what is said. Let's verify B: "prove that Jocelyn is a poorly run college." Consider the full list of issues: some of them were completely trivial and un-serious (i.e, the history of the 20,000 eggs), and some of them made Mulcahy himself look like a moron "Fought for salary increases and a lightning of the teacher load", rather than make the college look bad. Does it prove that the college is poorly run? No, it doesn't have that primary effect. Yes, there is the part where he talks about "waste in high places," which might imply the college is poorly run - however, 2 out of the 3 listed options don't have the primary effect, and it doesn't stronlgy PROVE that. Further, if the list were intended to make a statement that strong, it would not immediatly shift to Mulcahy's condolatory smile, with not a word more about it. </p>
<p>What I do with an answer choice like that - where part of the statement bears some weight but I don't really like it - is put a small mark next to it. If the other choices are much worst, I may end up selecting it as the best. However, when we get to E...</p>
<p>"Represent a wide range of topics, from the trivial to the serious."</p>
<p>Aha. This is one I like. Again, we're not drawing too much into the passage - the list does EXACTLY that - represent a wide range of topics, from the trivial to the serious. It does, through that mention of waste in high places, kind of IMPLY that the college is poorly run, but does it PROVE it? No. When choosing between a sketchy, unsupported inference, and a 100% true statement, the true statement has to win. E is now clearly the right one. Again, we avoided convoluted logic.</p>
<h1>13: Now, this type of question is the opposite of a problem like 11.</h1>
<h1>11 only requires you to verify the statements against the sentence itself. But this one will require some more holistic analysis, which does require some infering (although still in line with the text, not just imagination). None of the options, including the correct one, are explicitly stated, but you can find out which is the most implied. Instinctively, you should quickly be able to narrow it down to A or B, because the other answers are just god-awful. Now, why is it B over A? Think about A - what does the word "progressive" really mean? Successful and respected? Let's test it: "Bill Gates is the most progressive man in the world." Does that give you any idea that he's successful? No. It does make you think he must be pretty open-minded, though - which clearly matches answer choice B.</h1>
<p>Also, consider the list of issues that the subject of #9. What kinds of actions were Mulcahy committing that got him fired? Pretty controversial ones, right? Whistleblowing on waste, demanding better pay... he was clearly something of a pain in the @$$ to this college. His disappointment with them not being "progressive" (assuming the meaning in answer B) is logical - they weren't open to his new, controversial ideas. On the other hand, if we assume choice A, that argument is not supported. This doesn't disprove answer choice A, but it lends more support to answer choice B, which is already very well supported by our first verification. Clearly, B prevails.</p>