Hard critical reading questions!!

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

Passage 1

Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support
for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hun- dred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion

Passage 2

Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scien- tists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelli- gent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist

  1. Which statement best describes a significant difference between the two passages?

(A) Passage 1 analyzes a literary form, while Passage 2 argues that literature has little
bearing on science.
(B) Passage 1 presents an argument, while Passage 2 surveys current opinion in a debate.
© Passage 1 concludes by rejecting the Fermi Paradox, while Passage 2 opens by embracing it.
(D) Passage 1 describes a phenomenon, while Passage 2 details a belief system that would reject such a phenomenon.
(E) Passage 1 defends a viewpoint, while Passage 2 questions that viewpoint’s place in scientific research.

I would like to know why it’s not E,

  1. The claim made in Passage 1 that a “consensus” exists (lines 8-11) would most likely be interpreted by the author of Passage 2 as

(A) evidence of compromise in the scientific community
(B) an attack on SETI researchers
© support for Fermi’s analysis
(D) a revelation of an unexpected truth
(E) an oversimplification of a complex debate

I would like to know why it’s not B.

  1. In lines 44-48, the author of Passage 2 indicates that the Fermi Paradox has been (A) thoroughly misunderstood (B) surprisingly influential (C) overwhelmingly perplexing (D) intermittently popular (E) frequently misquoted

I honestly had no idea how to approach this question.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!!! :))

2

It’s not (E) because passage 2 doesn’t question that viewpoint’s place in scientific research. It doesn’t suggest that the viewpoint shouldn’t be researched or is researched too widely. The answer is (B) because passage one presents an argument (the Fermi Paradox) and passage two gives several different views and opinions about it (“survey” can mean to examine generally or broadly).

It’s *clearly/i–passage one says there’s a consensus (“general agreement”) but passage 2 has several dissenting views, so passage 2 “complicates” the matter, rendering passage 1 an “oversimplification.” It’s not (B) because passage 1 isn’t attacking SETI researchers and passage two doesn’t attempt to defend them. (B) is completely unsupportable in the passage.

Passage 2 says the Fermi Paradox was “posed in the most casual of circumstances”–ie. it was not presented in an official or formal scientific setting like a journal or conference–but that it has “reverberated through the decades”–ie. it has had a great influence. That influence can be seen as surprising since the FP itself was never presented as a serious piece of scientific scholarship and we don’t expect casual observations to “reverberate through the decades.”

@Peoples

3

You seem to have a tendency to select an answer with very specific facts. Be really careful with those and evaluate every word in the answer. Also, keep in mind that in questions like those posted the answer is more likely to be general. In fact, an expert in CR could potentially find the answers to your first two questions without reading the passage - because the right answers are classically worded general right answers.

Erica Meltzer’s The Critical Reader does an excellent job in explaining the points I suggested above in very great detail.

4

okay thank you!!

5

@CHD2013 offers very good advice. To that I’d only add that if the answer is very specific, you must be able to identify explicit clues in the passage–it must be completely verifiable.