<p>It’s really a matter of understanding WHAT the question is asking.</p>
<p>This question does not ask WHAT the statement in lines 10-13 is claiming, but rather why it is there in the passage. What purpose does it serve? What does it function as? Does it continue the argument as previously introduced, does it transition into something else, or does it completely flip over a new side of the leaf?</p>
<p>So the passage basically starts off by saying how powerfully omnipotent black holes are through their extremes and their hypothetical ability, if employed, to destroy everything we know.
So the passage basically says, “Black holes are significant!”</p>
<p>But then by the third sentence, the paragraph introduces a new idea, stating that although black holes seem so powerful, they compose only a tiny margin of all the MASS in our universe. So the passage downplays the first two sentences’ claims with the third, fourth, and fifth sentences by basically saying, “No, black holes are really not that significant!” This is known as a qualification of a previous statement.</p>
<p>The next line starting with “Accordingly,…” provides the pre-thesis statement of the entire passage. It states something that will be refuted in the next sentence, the true thesis. And that statement builds off the idea that black holes are possibly insignificant by saying that astronomers once ASSUMED that even super large, enormous, massive black holes had no significant effect on the universe apart from their immediate surroundings in space.</p>
<p>And then the thesis states something that completely contrasts this idea, rather surprisingly.
“So it has come as a surprise over the past decade that black hole activity is closely intertwined with star formation occurring farther out in the galaxy.” Here, the passage states that in contrast to what astronomers once assumed, black holes DO in fact have roles in influencing space outside of their immediate surroundings.</p>
<p>Now let’s consider what this last sentence functions as in the context of the paragraph.
A states that it summarizes the points made in the first four lines of the passage. But the first four lines offer a basic idea and then contradicts it. Obviously the thesis does not take one side and then switch to the other. The thesis has one straight, cut-out point, and that is that black holes are indeed quite significant in a way.</p>
<p>B states that the lines 10-13 support the previous statement. But that is totally false. The pre-thesis statement is the complete OPPOSITE of what the thesis statement (lines 10-13) is saying.</p>
<p>D is just nonsense. Look at the answer choice and just think a moment. WHERE in the passage is there even anything said EXPLICITLY about recent scientific findings? Nowhere. So D is obviously wrong.</p>
<p>E states that the thesis offers examples to support a theory. Again, E is obviously wrong, and one can see this from a quick initial glance. How? Think about it in terms of what I said about D.</p>
<p>Now this is a prime example of why you must be overly cautious when taking the Critical Reading part of the SAT. Even a single word in each of the answer choices and questions can completely throw you off. Answer choice E talks about examples being offered to support a theory. Sure, there is definitely multiple theories being thrown around in that paragraph, but then there are some problems. First of all, to which theory does E refer? You can’t tell, and you shouldn’t be able to do so. So that’s a first sign that E is probably not the right answer.
But the killing point in this consideration of E is the part about examples. Lines 10-13 do not offer a single example. It CITES a generalization about black holes that was recently known, but it does not give an actual example, which, in the SAT CR passages, usually takes more than half a sentence to be given.
Furthermore, the lines 10-13 function as a thesis. Examples need to be specific, but rather the entire sentence is a generalization, a very fundamental and basic overview of a point made about a topic.</p>
<p>So then we turn to C. The thesis does indeed provide a new view of information previously mentioned in the passage - that astronomers initially thought one thing, but it turned out surprisingly to be the other way around. And this supports the generalization factor of a thesis.</p>
<p>So this is why the answer choice is C. The deep analysis that I typed out took me nearly 5 minutes to write, and you essentially have no possibility of spending that much time on a question in the actual SAT. But the mental analysis of each question, with practice, should come much, much faster than this typing - for me, it took under 10 seconds for me to answer the question once I read it. Obviously you won’t be able to answer questions that fast without practice, so make sure you do indeed tackle passages of CR under timed conditions. </p>
<p>Finally, it helps to consider the passage as a dissection. Instead of trying to read into what the actual topic is talking about, just instead interpret the passage as a machine. Every Critical Reading passage can be interpreted this way - and you must be a master at doing this to score well on CR. For example, there is always some sort of introductory sentence that sets the background for the thesis, and then there is some statements to plunge deeper into the topic, and then there is a thesis or main point of the author’s argument. You need to be able to recognize each of these specific components of the paragraph both quickly and correctly. Once you can do that, CR should be no problem.
On the SAT I took, I simply used this “dissection” strategy for every single passage question. The results? I finished every section within three-quarters of the time given and scored a 800 CR.</p>
<p>PM me if you need any more help, but honestly, I suggest that you just use this strategy and practice a lot of CR. There’s nothing that actually helps more than individual practice.</p>
</p>