<p>In the coming century, we will decide, by default or
30 design, how much humanity will tolerate other species and
thus decide the future of biodiversity. The default scenario
will surely include ever more landscapes dominated by
pests and weeds, the global extinction of more large
vertebrates, and a continuing struggle to slow the loss of
biodiversity. While sound science can help mitigate the
risks of Pleistocene rewilding, the potential for unexpected
consequences will worry many conservationists. Yet given
the apparent dysfunction of North American ecosystems
and Earth's overall state, there are likely significant risks
40 of inaction as well.</p>
<ol>
<li>The author of Passage 1 characterizes the "default
scenario" in lines 31-35 as
(A) creative
(B) inevitable
(C) tolerable
(D) unlikely
(E) undesirable</li>
</ol>
<p>I chose B but its E. Why?! My understanding came from the default scenario ... more landscapes dominated..... Does it not show that its inevitable?</p>
<p>Americans should not be taxed to fund the Public
Broadcasting Service, and Congress should terminate
funding for it. We wouldn't want the federal government
Line to publish a national newspaper. Neither should we have
5 a government television network and a government
radio network. If anything should be kept separate from
government and politics, it's the news and public-affairs
programming that informs Americans about government
and its policies. When government brings us the news
10 with all the inevitable bias and spinthe government is
putting its thumbs on the scales of democracy. Journalists
should not work for the government. Taxpayers should
not be forced to subsidize news and public-affairs
programming.</p>
<ol>
<li>Lines 3-6 ("We wouldn't.. . network") make use of
which rhetorical strategy?
(A) Exaggeration
(B) Analogy
(C) Personal anecdote
(D) Historical citation
(E) Figurative language
How are the quoted lines an analogy? There is no X is like Y...</li>
</ol>
<p>A label that turns up regularly in articles about Kael
often by detractors, who feel they have to grant her
50 something before they start hacking awayis stylist. She
was, indeed, a major stylist, and she was already one in
her first published essays. But the word suggests that the
splendor of her writing was a bonus that came packaged
with her criticism. No: her writing is her criticism. In her
55 case, style is substance. A critic's words convey her ideas,
but her styleher craftcarries the authority of her
personality, from which her tastes grow. An anecdote:
one summer day not too many years ago, I was on Kael's
verandah, staring off vacantly, and seeing me through the
60 screen door, she called, "What are you doing?" "Thinking,"
I told her. (I wasn't.) She said, "I only think with a pencil in
my hand." It was just a small joke, but it got at something.
You sit down to review a work you're not sure about your
response to, and by the time you get up from your desk,
65 you know what you think. It isn't a matter of taking a stand
and then coming up with an argument to defend it; the
argument is more organic than that. As you connect your
thoughtsas you try to make them coherent by the simple
method of fixing your sentences, making the words flow,
70 correcting imprecisionsan argument emerges. There
may be beautifully vacant writing, but I can't cite any
beautifully vacant criticism. What I can cite is a lot of
bad critical prose that thinks it can get away with its
mediocrity by virtue of the (ostensibly) excellent quality
75 of the thought behind it. "I don't play accuratelyany
one can play accuratelybut I play with wonderful
expression," the playwright Oscar Wilde has a character
say as he rises from the piano. Perceptions that aren't
backed up by creditable prose are generally worthless,
80 because writing isn't just a conduit for thinking. Writing
is thinking.</p>
<ol>
<li>In context, lines 57-62 ("An anecdote ... something")
principally serve to
(A) point out the sources of humor in Kael's writing
(B) offer a gentle critique of Kael's film criticism
(C) reveal something about the author's character
(D) call attention to the author's relationship
with Kael
(E) introduce the author's reflections on the nature
of writing</li>
</ol>
<p>I took C since the lines followed carries the authority of her
Personality. But it turned out to be E.</p>
<ol>
<li>The author's main point in lines 63-70 ("You s i t . . .
emerges") is that
(A) opinions come into focus as you try to
express them
(B) coherent thoughts are much more important
than prose style
(C) you must know where you stand before you
can convince others
(D) an organic argument about a film need not
he based on personal evjpertence
(E) even the most talented writers occasionally
need to revise their work</li>
</ol>
<p>I took B. On reviewing it, I felt it was wrong because there is no comparison between coherent thoughts and prose style. Its about the improving the sentence/work as you connect your thoughts. The closest to that is A. Am I right?</p>