<p>So I did the Oct. 2011 SAT and ended up getting a 2350 (yay!). But I don't understand the rationale behind some of the ones i missed. For instance: </p>
<p>Section 7, Question 10 the passage reads:</p>
<p>Is there no way to recognize and reconcile the two undeniable extremes of art: its urgent, realistic depiction of human life and its retreat to a self-reflexive realm of lan-
Line guage, forms, and ideas? I can answer only with a parable. Many years ago when I lived in Texas I was struck by a
type of side road fairly common along the highways of that state. Called "loop roads" and assigned a state number, these routes ran a few miles into the countryside, sometimes to a homestead or small community, and returned to the highway at the same point or a little farther on, thus forming a loop. They were neither dead ends nor connecting roads to another highway. By taking one of these loop roads you could explore the landscape, change your direction, break your journey, and perhaps discover an impressive outlook or landmark, knowing that you would return to your original path after the detour. I sensed even then that such roads would later furnish a compact analogy for something I could not yet identify.</p>
<p>A work of art or literature removes us temporarily from 20 the regular path of our life and diverts us into a partly imaginary domain where we can encounter thoughts and feelings that would not have occurred to us on the highway. These side experiences differ from our daily lives. In literature they are made up of words-disembodied, intense, complex, wonderfully malleable, and convincing. These differences permit a literary work to probe disturbingly deep into poten- tial relations among character, action, thought, and the natural world. We accept the differences and expect them to observe or exceed certain conventions of plausibility and exaggeration, usefulness and fantasy. At the same time we know that this detour of art will deliver us back before long into the track of our life, which may be changed or influ- enced in some manner by the side trip.</p>
<p>This loop analogy presents a work of art as a form of 35 delay or relay along the path of living. Its processes are only temporarily autonomous; they turn off from and return to the realities of human existence. Humans have a great capacity for delayed response, for foresight based on hindsight. Art- ists and writers refine and develop this faculty by constantly rehearsing real and imaginary events in order somehow to get them right- in timing and tone. This process of paus- ing to reflect, of rehearsing (both before and after the fact) the consequences of our actions, has always inspired human artistic creativity. Art is free to try all the genres and modes it can imagine; some of them travel a long way from reality. Its responsibility is to return us to reality better prepared to continue our journey.</p>
<p>and the question that stumped me was: </p>
<p>The tone of the passage might best be described as:
A. Openly critical
B. conversational and whimsical
C. nostalgic and unceratain
D. personal and reflective
E. cautiously argumentative</p>
<p>I immediately eliminated "openly critical" and "cautiously argumentative", and after some more thought I eliminated "nostalgic and uncertain" because the author spoke with conviction. I was torn between B and D, but chose B because the essay's formatting didn't seem terribly formal even if the diction did, and the way the author described the wonders of art as an escape from reality really did seem whimsical. Yet the answer was D, personal and reflective. I don't really understand why; the passage doesn't seem highly personal to the author, as he describes art in terms of its perception by mankind rather than himself, and it didn't seem to be guided by personal experience. Could someone explain this to me?</p>
<p>Thanks,
Lanflan</p>
<p>:)) </p>