Some SAT/GRE problems

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Sorry guys, they GRE contain analogies but otherwise the reading is similar to that of the SAT. Give it a shot if you are curious (and you never know, you might see this four years down the road. :)) </p>

<ol>
<li>Crosby's colleagues have never learned, at least not in time to avoid embarrasing themeselves, that her occassional _____ air of befuddlement _____ a display of her formidable intelligenc.
(A) genuine. dominates
(B) alert..contradicts
(C) acute..precludes
(D) bogus..presages
(E) painstaking..succeeds</li>
</ol>

<p>A serious critic has to compredend the particular content, unique structure, and special meaning of a work af art. And here she faces dilemma. The critic must recognize the artistic element of uniqueness that requires subjective reaction. Her likes and dislikes are less important than what the work itself communicates, and her preferences may blind her to certain qualities of the work and thereby prevent an adequate understading of it. Hence, it is necessary that a critic develop a sensibility informed by familiarity with the history of art and aesthetic theory. On the other hand, it is insufficient to treat the artwork solely historically, in relation to a fixed set of ideas or values. The critic's knowledge and training are, rather, a preparation of the cognitive and emotional abilities needed for an adequate personal response to an artwork's own particular qualities. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>According to the author, a serious critic may avoid being prejudiced by her subjective reactions if she
(A) treats an artwork in relation to a fixed set of ideas and values
(B) brings to her observation a knowledge of art history and aesthetic theory
(C) allows more time for the observation of each artwork
(D) takes into account the preferences of other art critics
(E) limits herself to tha tart with which she has adequate familiarity</p></li>
<li><p>PLANT : SOIL ::
(A) germ : bacteria
(B) organism : medium
(C) sample : growth
(D) nutrient : liquid
(E) tree : root</p></li>
<li><p>DISGUISE : RECOGNITION ::
(A) prevarication : statement
(B) infidelity : marriage
(C) camouflage : infiltration
(D) espionage : diplomacy
(E) padding : dammage</p></li>
<li><p>GUST : WIND ::
(A) rapids : river
(B) blizzard : snowstorm
(C) cloudburst : rainfall
(D) mist : fog
(E) surf : sea</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Diamonds, an occasional component of rare igneous rocks called lamproites and kimberlites, have never been dated satisfactorily. However, some daimonds contain minute inclusions of silicate minerals, commonly olivine, pyroxene, and garnet. These minerals can be dated by radiactive decay techniques because of the very small quantities of radioactive trace elements they, in turn, contain. Usually, it is possible to conclrude that the inclusions are older than their diamond hosts, but with little indication of the time interval involved. Sometimes, however, the crystal form of the silicate inclusions is observed to resemble more closely the internal structure of diamond than that of other silicate minerals. It is not known how rare this resemblance is, or whether it is most often seen in inclusion of silicates such as garnet, whose crystallography is generally somewhat similar to that of diamond; but when present, the resemblance is regarded is compelling evidence that the diamonds and inclusions are truly cogenetic. </p>

<ol>
<li>The main purpose of the passage is to
(A) explain why it has not been possible to determine the age of diamonds
(B) explain how it might be possible to date some diamonds
(C) compare two alternative approaches to determining the age of diamonds
(D) compare a method of dating diamonds with a method used to date certain silicate minerals
(E) compare the age of diamonds with that of certain silicate minerals contained within them </li>
</ol>

<p>Specifically, I would like to know why answers are (D) instead of (B) for 1, (B) instead of (A) for 2, (B) instead of (E) for 3, (E) instead of (A) for 4 (prevarication is to avoud making a truthful statement, right?), (C) instead of (A) or (B) for 5, and why B instead of any other (A, C, D, E) for 6.</p>

2

<p>It would help if you spell-checked your post first of all.</p>

<p>

There is only one true indication of Crosby: that she is intelligent. “Formidable” in this case describes something that is wonderful; one would stand at a distance in awe of whatever it is that is formidable. An intelligent person wouldn’t be befuddled; thus, any indication of befuddlement (confusion) must be “bogus,” or false. Crosby pretends to be confused temporarily (as indicated by the use of the word “occasional”) only to project her intelligence afterward. Thus, the impression that she is befuddled immediately leads to, or “presages,” Crosby’s display of her formidable intelligence.</p>

<p>The answer is not (B) because “alert” simply does not fit. What is your reasoning behind (B)? It just doesn’t make sense. “Contradicts” doesn’t make sense either; otherwise, the sentence would read: “Crosby’s colleagues never learned . . . that her . . . befuddlement contradicts a display of her formidable intelligence.” The point of the sentence is to state that her colleagues never learned that she was pretending to be confused before it was too late, not that such an action “contradicted” her intelligence–that is already obvious.</p>

<p>

The passage is saying that critics of art should not be subjective. They should avoid reacting to works of art based on their own tastes, but rather critique works of art based on objective knowledge of history and theory. Basically, critics can avoid subjective reactions (e.g., “I don’t think abstract art is a real form of art”) by drawing reactions from objective and unbiased knowledge of art (e.g., “abstract art has had a long influential history”). Two of the sentences from the passage express this belief of the author: “Her preferences may blind her to certain qualities of the work . . . Hence, it is necessary that a critic develop a sensibility informed by familiarity with the history of art and aesthetic theory.”</li>
</ol>

<p>It is not (A) because the author does not support the idea that a critic should critique art based on a “fixed,” or limited, set of ideas or values. This contradicts the point of the passage. Critics should be OPEN, not “fixed.”</p>

<p>

Plants move, grow, and live through soil. Organisms move, grow, and live through mediums (e.g., the air); a medium is anything that occupies space and allows movement. A medium can be thought of as a natural habitat for an organism.</p>

<p>It is not (E) because roots provide trees with nutrients but are not connected to trees in the way soil is. Plants and trees are attached to soil as a human being is to the floor. The floor allows us to move. A floor is a medium on which organisms can walk or crawl.</p>

<p>

If X is disguised (hidden), then Y likely cannot recognize X.
If X is padded (protected), then Y likely cannot damage X.</p>

<p>Yes, to prevaricate is to avoid telling the truth, or to indirectly lie. The answer is not (A) because a statement is neutral. A statement of lies is still a statement. A prevarication does not prevent or stop a statement from being made. A liar does not prevent someone from making a statement either.</p>

<p>

A gust is a quick but strong wind. A cloudburst is a quick and extremely heavy rainfall. </p>

<p>The answer is not (A) or (B) because rapids are a phenomenon seen in rivers and blizzards are just a stronger type of snowstorm. Neither rapids nor blizzards last a short amount of time like gusts and cloudbursts do.</p>

<p>

The first sentence of the passage says that diamonds have never been dated satisfactorily. The second sentence says that some diamonds contain specific kinds of materials, and the third sentence says that these materials can be dated. The rest of the passage talks about the materials mentioned in the second sentence. The passage doesn’t talk that much about the aging process directly; instead, it focuses on the specific elements and minerals of certain diamonds which just happen to be able to be dated. The passage doesn’t talk about “methods” of dating diamonds, nor does it try to justify why the age of diamonds is so hard to determine. It doesn’t really compare two approaches, either.</li>
</ol>

3

<p>Dude, thank you so much for the reply - I didn’t expect such a thorough explanation. I will definitely check my spellings next time. I am so sorry, I am still a bit confused and I don’t know if I see this problem again I will pick the right answer. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>The one thing with (D) that threw me off was the word “presages.” I was thinking a word such as “belie” would fit the second blank. Is it really idiomatically/logically to say that her occasional sense of confusion “foretells” her formidable sense of intelligence? How could that be obvious like you said? </p></li>
<li><p>I thought that since “it’s insufficient to treat the artwork solely historically, in relation to a fixed set of ideas and values,” it would seem that this is in parallel with “being informed by history and aesthetic theory,” because the former refers to the later in the passage. Like, while “it’s necessary” that he be informed by history and aesthetic theory, nowhere in the passage does it say it’s sufficient. And to me, being “binded to a set of values” is a much stronger condition than have an awareness of art history. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Here was what I got from the passage: even if someone is informed by history and aesthetic theory, he could still have biased. Whereas, if he treats the artwork solely in relation to a fixed set of ideas and values, he could not possibly have any subjective judgments of his own. </p>

<ol>
<li>The first sentence tells us that diamonds have never been dated satisfactorily. That’s why I picked (A). The rest of the passage describes examples in which it’s very hard to date diamonds and thus support this thesis. What’s wrong with (A)?</li>
</ol>

4

<ol>
<li><p>The sentence wants to say that Crosby’s colleagues have never known that she would pretend to be confused until it would be too late. The colleagues did not know that her look of confusion would lead to a display of her intelligence. This is precisely why “presages” works. Perhaps the key to this sentence is the “at least not in time to avoid embarrassing themselves” part: if her colleagues had known ahead of time what Crosby’s look of confusion would lead to, or presage, they would avoid embarrassing themselves. However, since they have never learned of this ahead of time, they never did so “in time to avoid embarrassing themselves.” Get it? If X foreshadows (and leads to) Y, and if I would be embarrassed if we were to ever get to point Y, then I could say, “I have never learned, at least not in time to avoid embarrassing myself, that X warns me of Y. I want to avoid Y, so if I had learned of X, I would have avoided embarrassing myself. But I didn’t. Oh well.” Do you understand it now? It isn’t so much that X “foretells” Y–it is more of a warning: since Y is a bad place to be, one would want to know that X “warns” of, or presages, Y, so one could avoid embarrassment. </p></li>
<li><p>The question says, “According to the author, a serious critic may avoid being prejudiced by her subjective reactions if she . . . .” Look at the fourth sentence: “Her likes and dislikes are less important than what the work itself communicates, and her preferences may blind her to certain qualities of the work and thereby prevent an adequate understanding of it.” At this point in reading, the reader should wonder, then how could a critic possibly avoid being prejudiced by his or her likes or dislikes? Then, the reader reads the next sentence: “Hence, it is necessary that a critic develop a sensibility informed by familiarity with the history of art and aesthetic theory.” Right away you should know what the answer to the question is. Yes, the next sentence reads, “On the other hand . . . ,” but that part is unrelated to the question. It doesn’t cancel out the statement the author made prior. Also look at the word “may” in the question, and the phrase “brings to her observation” in the answer. Knowledge of history and theory may not be sufficient by itself, but using it ALONG with personal observation MAY help a serious critic avoid being prejudiced.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Let’s examine this sentence: “On the other hand, it is insufficient to treat the artwork solely historically, in relation to a fixed set of ideas or values.”</p>

<p>The phrase “in relation to a fixed set of ideas or values” modifies “to treat . . . .” It is insufficient to treat the artwork in relation to a fixed set of ideas or values. I think you misinterpreted the sentence. If anything’s insufficient, it’s that. You have it the other way around. Ideas and values can be biased, especially if they are “fixed” (or pertain to a specific culture, like if the history of a specific kind of art is restricted). However, if you bring history and theory TO your own subjective tastes, you can find a balance and try to avoid being biased. Do you get it?</p>

<ol>
<li>

No, it doesn’t. Notice the “however” in the second sentence. The passage at that point obviously wants to say that it IS possible to date some diamonds (read the third sentence: "These minerals can be dated . . . "). After that point, the passage continues to talk about these types of diamonds, indirectly building upon the second and third sentences’ statement that it is possible to date some diamonds.</li>
</ol>