<ol>
<li><p>That sentence would never appear on the SAT for several reasons. First of all, it contains five (!) prepositional phrases in a row, making it unnecessarily verbose. SAT sentences tend to be written in a different style. Second of all, “propensity” is not used correctly in the context. For example, one may have a propensity to drink when one is depressed. Thus, to have a propensity “to its resolution” makes no sense.</p></li>
<li><p>Nor would this sentence appear on the SAT. The word “vogue” is a noun; you say that something is “in vogue” when it is popular at the moment (alternatively, you could say that it is “the vogue”). Although it is true that “vogue” is used as an adjective in very rare, obscure cases, a person cannot be vogue. It could, however, be used in this context: “An oil bonanza made the oil companies vogue stocks.” And, honestly, I don’t think the correct answer would ever contain two French words.</p></li>
<li><p>Well, to say the least, it’s a run-on sentence. There should be a semicolon rather than a comma before “thus.” Also, I don’t like the use of “societies” in that sentence; it’s quite ambiguous. Does each exotic land have an eclectic collection of societies?</p></li>
<li><p>The word “propitiate” is misused; it means “appease.” You can’t “appease” someone “towards” something. That’s not to mention that “video games” are not an “industry.”</p></li>
<li><p>This one’s not too bad, although both (C) and (E) appear to be plausible answers (although neither fits perfectly).</p></li>
</ol>