SAT Section 3 Critical Reading

Poker is mentioned as part of the list of things that do not bring us the highest happiness. We need to relate this list to the first sentence to get the answer. Poker is apparently an example of “what goes by the name of pleasure” and which the author says is an “effort to destroy consciousness”. Answer A is best because it paraphrases this idea. (“Destroy consciousness” is changed to “avoid thinking”).

‘Once’ followed by ‘now’ indicates that things have changed. Where once the club did well (it was thriving) it is now doing badly. Furthermore, the sentence tells us that the programs have been canceled and so we can choose defunct, which means no longer working.
(extant = still in existence; resurgent = reviving; burgeoning = growing; renovated = redecorated)

Remember that this is an ‘except’ question. Four choices will give things that the author does suggest as an explanation for the numbers, and one (the right answer) will not. That the food contains a concentrated source of nutrients is given by the phrase ‘much nutriment in small bulk’ (line 67). Rapid regrowth is covered by ‘has a rapid growth' (line 69). Large area by ‘roam over wide tracts’ (line 65). Overestimate of requirements is covered by ‘much exaggerated’ (line 74). This leaves D as the right answer.

The author refers to the breaking down of a principle that the founders would have thought “axiomatic”. Axiomatic means assumed to be true. It is the Prohibition Amendment that apparently breaks down or “violates” this principle, making C the correct answer. This principle would not have bewildered the founders; the amendment would (eliminating E). Similarly the amendment represents a change in belief (eliminating D). B is too strong because of the word “all”, and A can be ruled out because of “not”.

The main point of the passage is to show that so-called pleasure is not enough to justify existence. By answering these questions we will apparently reveal that pleasure and physical comforts are only part of what a human being needs. (We also need “solitude, creative work and the sense of wonder”.) These ideas are best conveyed by answer D.

The ‘prejudice’ talked about here is the same as the false reasoning in sentence 1. This prejudice/false reasoning has led to false ideas on the part of geologists. Answer C.

Both passages say both positive and negative things about Priestley. So we can eliminate the entirely positive (B), and the entirely negative (A). The authors cannot be described as neutral because they take a position (eliminate D). Both are rather firm in their attitudes so ambivalence is inappropriate (eliminate E). By saying “qualified approval” we mean that the authors approve up to a point. The word “qualified” is a favorite with examiners because students often misunderstand; used in this way it actually means “modified, moderated, or limited”.

‘Vitiated’ usually means ‘weakened’. Here the author argues that false ideas have ‘vitiated the reasoning of geologists’. False ideas would harm or ‘impair’ reasoning. Hence, answer C.

The words “dephlogisticated air” are placed in inverted commas because the name used by Priestley is misleading; its true nature and important role in combustion etc. had to be elucidated by others. Hence we can say that the substance was important but the name was a misnomer. (A misnomer is a wrong name.) Paragraph two clearly tells us that it was one of the gases discovered by Priestley. It is obvious from paragraph one that Preistley’s ideas about his discovery were in error, and that he had no real idea of the theoretical implications of this work. Thus all three statements are correct.

He ‘spoke very little’ and so he uses few words.
Therefore, taciturn is the best word.
(garrulous = talkative; equivocal = ambiguous; gregarious = sociable)

The author says in sentence two that his previous definition was “too absolute”. Yet he admits that the less man “upsets the balance of Nature” the better. Hence his definition is not entirely right (because it is too idealistic) but it is not entirely wrong either. It is now easy to eliminate answers A, C, D, and E because they are strongly negative.

Both the first and the last sentence of the excerpt indicate that the author is concerned with the size of mammals and the amount of vegetation. Hence answer A. (Note that strong words like ‘prove’ and ‘completely’ are not usually answers to primary purpose questions. This fact can help you eliminate answer choices.)

In “except” questions find the true statements first. In this case find four statements that WEAKEN the idea that destroying pests is beneficial. That means finding statements that show that it is NOT a good idea to destroy the pests. Answers A, B, C, and E give reasons why destroying these insects might be a mistake. D, however, is the right answer because it suggests that eliminating these insects might not be wrong, since they are not even natural inhabitants of the area.

Anterior probability here suggests that the observations contradict what might have been expected, answer A.

To be sure of the answer we need to read the sentence before the reference to carnage. The mention of predators such as the lion, panther and hyena, as well as the birds of prey, indicates that the author is thinking of all the animals that must be killed by these predators each day. Hence, answer B.

Darwin quotes Burchell to show how the latter was struck by the luxuriant vegetation and absence of large mammals in South America. He does this to contradict the belief that large animals are found where there is abundant vegetation (line 75). Since a misconception is a wrong belief, answer A is correct.

Dr. Smith is mentioned extensively. His experience is quoted on all of the points mentioned in the question. Plant life in lines 49-51, large numbers of animals in lines 38 onwards, and number of carnivores in lines 56-60. Hence, answer E.

Darwin places heavy reliance on Dr. Smith’s observations. So we can eliminate D because of the negative words. Reliable in A is a good word, but imaginative is inappropriate for one who records facts. There is no evidence that he is excitable, which leaves us to consider B and E. The discussion of the expedition (lines 18 onwards ) supports the idea that Darwin thinks him intrepid (brave and adventurous), and B is the best choice. (The words in E are really too strong. Incontrovertible means cannot be contradicted, and peerless means without equal).

The main point of paragraph one is that, though Priestley made important contributions to factual knowledge, “he had no comprehension of the deeper significance of his work”, and. in fact, spent his life defending wrong ideas. This suggests that the first part of answer C and E could be right. The main point of paragraph two is that, though Priestley was not as great as some other scientists, he managed to make important discoveries that were “truly wonderful if we consider the disadvantages under which he labored”. This idea is most accurately conveyed in answer E.

The passage tells us that the framers of the Constitution would not have been so surprised at the changes in technology and other areas as they would have been by the Prohibition Amendment. It goes on to indicate that there is some fundamental change in principle involved in this amendment, but does not elaborate. We can conclude that the author is about to go into details of this amendment and why it is apparently so different. This is why we can say the passage is an introduction to a discussion of the amendment.

The remarks indicate that there are not enough data, and so an actual comparison cannot be made. The comparison attempted here is, therefore, highly speculative. (Speculative means based on guesswork or supposition.) Answer C.

We can eliminate answer A because “the pinnacle” implies the topmost point. Priestley made important discoveries but it is obvious that the author thinks there are other scientists who are more important, making “pinnacle” too strong. There is no suggestion of “fighting”, eliminating answer B. Similarly “opposition” is wrong in E. There is no mention that he escaped “traditional ideas”; in fact paragraph one suggests that he has hampered by his adherence to old ideas. This leaves us with the idea that scaling the walls of science means succeeding in doing something difficult.

Dr. Smith is mentioned extensively. His experience is quoted on all of the points mentioned in the question. Plant life in lines 49-51, large numbers of animals in lines 38 onwards, and number of carnivores in lines 56-60. Hence, answer E.

The author mentions travel books (line 11), illustrations (engravings, line 15), private communication (Dr. Smith informed the author personally, line 19), and he refers to recorded observations in various places (e.g. line 82). But there are no mentions of historical documents (only contemporary ones are mentioned). This makes E the correct answer.