This is not a common question type. Since the passage does not mention the twenty-first century, I know that it’s not actually really asking me anything about the passage. I just need to decide which choice is making a statement that people in our century would not: for technological or cultural reasons.

Immediately stands out to me because we can now easily imagine regularly allowing not just a thousand people to hold a conversation, but thousands upon thousands through the internet and other technological advances in communication. That makes A a great candidate for the right answer. Since this is an uncommon question type, though, we should probably still check all the other answer choices.

There are no obvious reasons to believe that B would not be the case in the twenty-first century. Large groups of people are still influenced when a well-known speaker speaks well. That’s enough to make B incorrect.

This is another timeless answer; the passage offers us no reason to believe that technological or social developments would change this, and we can readily imagine that even today, smaller groups could still be less easily manipulated than individuals in a large group. C is therefore likely incorrect.

Again, there are no obvious temporal markers that would limit D to a specific period in time. The statement is made in such a way that it could be true today. That tells me that A has to be right

This is a common question that just requires me to know when a practical example is used: that is, an example that reflects conditions in real life.

I am immediately suspicious of A because for it to be correct, the passage would likely have had to provide a direct example of a specific individual who led a sudden insurrection: something I would have remembered and noted. A quick glance through the passage confirms that no such example is given, so I can safely eliminate A.

B also makes me immediately suspicious because it is difficult to conceive of how anything like B would even be possible to depict practically. I can eliminate B without even checking where the quote comes from (the end of paragraph 3) for that reason. If I did check, I could eliminate B because it is the end of that paragraph, with no example at all to support that claim before or after it.

C is almost like a combination of A and B. It is difficult to imagine what a practical example of C would look like, and I would be likely to remember such an example if one was given in the passage. If I was especially nervous, a quick check of paragraph 2, where the quote is from, quickly moves past the point to make a new one, without an example to support it. So C is also wrong.

This has to be the right answer by virtue of the process of elimination, but I can imagine being nervous about choosing D since it is difficult to imagine a practical example that supports it. When I check the last paragraph, though, the passage offers its clearest practical example: “If Peter wrongs Paul, it is out of the question that all the other citizens should hasten to the spot to undertake a personal examination of the matter in dispute and to take the part of Paul against Peter.” Here is a scenario that can happen in the world between two actual individuals that supports the last paragraph’s point, so I can safely choose D.

This is an uncommon, but not a rare question: one that is asking me to extrapolate some advice based off of the main idea of the passage. Since the passage is focused on arguing that there are problems with direct democracies and the author’s preference for smaller assemblies (paragraph 2 and 3), I know that the right answer will be something that advocates a limited democracy: one in which the people have a say, but that involves a small deliberative body who gets to make decisions.

I can immediately eliminate A because it is not a democracy, and the author is careful to not reject democracies outright. The author is also suspicious of governments in which a single individual controls the masses (paragraph 1), so the author is actually likely to warn against A, not advocate for it.

This is exactly what I was looking for: a democratic government in which decisions are not made directly by the people, but by a smaller deliberative body. B has to be correct.

C is immediately wrong because it advocates for a direct democracy, which the author repeatedly argues against.

D is the attractive wrong answer in this set. The second half of the answer choice is clearly meant to trick me into thinking D could be the right answer because it sounds like the main idea. But if I were stuck between D and B, I would eliminate D because it does not mention democracy, and because paragraph 1 explicitly warns against the power of oligarchies when it claims that a direct democracy “fails to provide any guarantee against the formation of an oligarchical ruling clique.” For this to be a strike against direct democracies, oligarchies must be bad.

This is a common question type: one that poses a situation, and asks me to evaluate its effect on some argument in the passage. To answer the question, I need to figure out what points the situation directly affects. Since it is talking about a small group that is acting in ways the author would not like, insofar as the group is not democratic and is under the sway of an “authoritarian, charismatic leader,” the most likely candidate is the point made in paragraph 3: “It is a fact of everyday experience that enormous public meetings commonly carry resolutions by acclamation or by general assent, while these same assemblies, if divided into small sections, say of fifty persons each, would be much more guarded in their assent.” This feels right because the question stem describes a small group that fails to be “more guarded in their assent” to the bad decisions that large groups are prey to, such as joining a cult.

This has to be incorrect since the question stem mentions a small group, not a large one. The information in the question stem would therefore not affect A.

B is tempting because the question stem mentions a cult, and we often think of cults as making people lose touch with their personalities and sense of responsibility to loved ones. But B describes a person’s behavior in a large group, so the information in the question stem—which refers to a small group—would not affect B.

C has to be wrong for the same reasons A and B are wrong: because it focuses on large groups, and does not mention small groups.

D has to be correct via process of elimination. It also fits what I’m looking for, since the question stem describes a small group acting irrationally. The cult’s very existence weakens D, insofar as it argues against the idea that small groups are better at avoiding the manipulation of charismatic individuals than large groups are.

This is a question about the specific usage of a phrase, and so I should double check this reference, since it is likely that a wrong answer will offer me an answer that might make common sense, but not resemble what is going on in the passage. Checking paragraph 4, the sentences that stand out are “The sovereign masses are incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions. The impotence of direct democracy, like the power of indirect democracy, is a direct outcome of the influence of number.” That tells me that the term “sovereignty of the masses” has something to do with the ability of the masses to govern themselves. That doesn’t feel like quite enough to be sure about an answer, though, so I may have to eliminate my way through this one.

This clearly has to do with governance, but it is the opposite of what I’m looking for, since A describes an indirect democracy: that is, a democracy in which the masses are not ruling themselves.

This feels like it has to be the right answer, since it describes the people governing themselves. I might be put off a bit by how strongly B is worded, though, so to be safe I should eliminate the other answer choices.

C feels off because it does not deal with governance directly. I would definitely eliminate C, though, after remembering that one of the main charges that the author levels against direct democracy is that direct government by the people does not allow for “serious discussions or thoughtful deliberations.” C qualifies as thoughtful deliberation, and so I should feel good about getting rid of it.

D indirectly deals with governance, since the passage mentions that those orators are described in the passage as people who could control a direct democracy. But the passage claims that the masses lack the ability to avoid being tricked by popular orators, so it is unlikely that the author would suggest that their sovereignty involved such an understanding. D has to be wrong.

This is a reference question that’s asking me to explain what role the quote plays in the passage. Checking paragraph 2, since the quote follows “Reverent souvenir hunting is often deeply installed in those who love art,” I know that the quoted line has to explain or justify “reverent souvenir hunting.”

The author clearly dislikes souvenir hunters, since the passage argues that those who seek out an author’s artifacts fail to concentrate on the author’s work, which is the real way to get close to authors. I can therefore safely eliminate A.

While this mentions souvenir hunters, I know that the discussion of why people hunt for author souvenirs does not clearly come around until paragraph 6, when the author talks about such people wanting to be close to an author. So while that’s a good reason to eliminate B, I’m also a little uneasy about eliminating B straight away, since one may construe wanting to “value the serious” as the souvenir hunters’ motive; that is, these hunters want to preserve unimportant parts of an author to highlight their devotion to that author. So my best bet is to sit on B, while expecting a better answer to come along.

This is a better answer than B because it fits what I was looking for when I evaluated the question stem. Also, seeing C helps me see that the statement in the question stem is less about why souvenir hunters do what they do, and more of an explanation of why souvenir hunting is common to those who love art. So I can confidently pick C and eliminate B.

This answer choice is easy to eliminate, both because the author clearly dislikes souvenir hunting, and because the quote in the question stem is not backed up with any claims that define it as respectable.

This is the second structure question in a row. It is actually almost identical to question 6 insofar as it is also asking for the function of a piece of text. I don’t even need to go back to paragraph 2 because I just referenced it for question 6; I know that the story of Stevenson’s nanny is an example of how many people love to hunt for souvenirs.

I am immediately suspicious of A because it is not only a direct quote from the text: it is a direct quote from an answer choice in question 6. The story of Stevenson’s nanny does not really discuss triviality or seriousness, so I am fairly sure that A is incorrect. I might keep it around until I find a better answer, though.

Here’s another tricky answer, insofar as it gives me an implication of the story. When the author claims that “perhaps by the time the canny nanny had finished trading, there was enough Stevenson hair around to open a wig shop,” the author is implying that the nanny was selling fake locks of Stevenson’s hair, which makes her a charlatan: a liar. However, I know that paragraph 2 is not focused on arguing that the nanny was a fraud; it is instead more interested in making a statement about souvenir hunters. Since B does not even mention those hunters, it has to be wrong.

This has to be the right answer because it says something about how many people wanted to hunt for souvenirs from their favorite authors. It is so direct that it is clearly better than A.

I know that paragraph 2 does not argue anything about Stevenson’s books—since it is actually about how people relate to authors in ways that go beyond their books—so I can safely eliminate D.

This is almost the same question as 6 and 7. However, instead of talking about what role a phrase or idea plays in the passage, all I have to do is understand the specific definition of this phrase in the context of the passage. Looking back to paragraph 3, the phrase that sticks out to me is from the sentence before it: “if you are a writer who has the misfortune to be dead as well as famous, matters are less under your control.” That tells me that the quoted phrase is all about how the dead writer lacks control over their work: how the fans end up with that control.

I feel confident choosing A. It is exactly what I’m looking for, insofar as the dead author cannot “oppose” the readings of readers.

This is easy to eliminate, since nothing in the passage opposes writers to each other. The only opposition mentioned in the passage is between authors and their readers.

This is clearly wrong because the author argues the opposite: that to be “owned without opposition” is to allow readers to further entrench on the poet’s private life through such activities as souvenir hunting.

This is meant to be the tempting right answer to this question, because the passage mentions something like D in paragraph 2. In fact, I’ve seen this idea in the two previous questions. That, however, is why D has to be wrong: because paragraph 3 shifts slightly to a related but different point from paragraph 2. A quick scan of paragraph 3 can confirm that nothing there discusses wanting to own a poet’s things, since paragraph 3 is all about how a poet is appreciated in a different way when that poet dies.

This is yet another structure question. It’s likely here in this sequence to test if having so many similar questions will lull me into laziness. This is a straightforward inference question, and a quick check of paragraph 4 tells me that the phrase in the question stem is all about how authors’ personal lives will be read into their works, even when those authors would not want that to happen.

This is correct. It aligns with the quote’s reference to biography, and it suggests betrayal (going against the writer’s wishes).

This is the exact opposite claim that the author makes in paragraph 4. The author wants readers to study the writer’s works, and so would not suggest that the true intentions of an author could be found through their biographies.

This is incorrect on two counts: because it is a very strong statement in a passage that does not really utilize such extreme statements, and because the question stem is focused on the author, while C is focused on the reader. C is therefore out of the question’s scope.

Like C, D is wrong on two counts: because it also uses language that is stronger than the passage would justify, and because D focuses on glorification, a term that the author does not ever invoke when discussing the authors who are betrayed by biography.

After so many questions that resembled each other, 10 marks a dramatic shift in question type, so I need to be careful and expect that 10 is likely going to be a more difficult question. And it definitely is, insofar as the question posits a scenario, and asks me to figure out what claim from the passage this scenario would negatively impact. So my first move is to try to redescribe this scenario in terms of the passage. The question stem describes a biographer who worked closely with an author (James Joyce) who approved of the biography. That has to challenge the author’s assertion that authors want readers to concentrate on their works and not their biographies (paragraph 5). Because if the author’s argument holds, then Joyce would likely not have approved a biography that risked distracting people from his work.

A is exactly what I was looking for. But since 10 is a challenging question, I might feel better if I eliminated the other answer choices.

I can easily eliminate B because the situation in the question stem does not clearly have anything to do with an author’s fear of what might become of their legacy after they die. If I was a really generous reader, I might read Joyce’s assistance in writing a biography about him as his attempt to control his reputation after his death, in which case B is still wrong; in that reading, the question stem supports B, and so does not challenge it.

This is another easy elimination, since the situation in the question stem does not say anything about biographies explaining the meaning of a writer’s work. I do not have enough information about what Joyce actually contributed to the biography—or even what the biography says—for C to be correct.

I can confidently eliminate D as well because the question stem says nothing about what readers are interested in.

This is a question that asks me to extrapolate advice based on an argument the author makes in the passage. Since this posited situation mentions an author biography, I know that the author would likely warn the reader away from it, since the author wants readers to read an author’s works and not their biographies (paragraph 5).

I know the author is directly opposed to A, so I can eliminate it.

This is also a quick elimination for almost exactly the same reasons as A.

I know that the author does not really have opinions on how biographies are made; the author is primarily interested in making sure people avoid biographies of authors in favor of the works those authors wrote, so it hard to see how the author would advocate C.

This has to be the right answer, both because it is what we are left with after the process of elimination, but also because D is what I am looking for: a choice that says to avoid biographies.

This is ostensibly a question I should reference the passage to answer (since it is an “According to the passage” question), but after answering every other question in this set, the answer is obvious to me. The author clearly thinks that buying Faulkner’s pipe is foolish, so I am looking for an answer that denigrates the purchase.

This is wrong because it is not what I am looking for, and because the other example in the passage that resembles what the question is asking about suggests the opposite of A: that souvenir hunters might need to worry about buying fakes (paragraph 2).

This is a perfect answer choice. B explains why buying the pipe is a mistake: because it will not help the reader get closer to Faulkner or Faulkner’s writing.

C is the tempting wrong answer for this set, because paragraph 2 definitely suggests C. However, that’s a distraction from the author’s real point: whether or not the pipe is authentic, it is still a mistake to buy it if one wants to get closer to Faulkner. B is still the better answer.

By now, I know that the author would hate this, making D clearly incorrect.

The passage is so fact-based and so light on argument that I likely will not feel good about this question unless I double check the passage for at least these early questions.Peasants: I know that peasants played a role in preserving the various orders in Portugal because of paragraph 3, which describes them as “guardians of the past.” So I must be correct.

Freemasons: When I search the passage for mentions of the Freemasons, I find them listed in paragraph 3 as people who are “irked by the despotism of the past” and so would likely have sought change: not kept change from happening. So II is likely incorrect.

The royal family: That paragraph also lists “Queen Maria Francisca and her son John,” so I can feel confident that III must also be correct.

This has to be wrong because they are described in paragraph 3 as in opposition to conserving the status quo.

I know III is correct, but I also know I is correct, so B is wrong.

Is what I’m looking for.

Is easy to eliminate because II is incorrect.

This is really a reference question asking me why Napoleon disliked Portugal. Napoleon’s relationship to Portugal is only mentioned in the last paragraph, where the issue appears to be Portugal’s relationship with England: “Portugal asked for a like accommodation [a separate peace] but France refused, alleging that Portugal was in effect a colony and ally of England. The quarrel simmered till Napoleon, after conquering half of Europe, reached out for the little state that was refusing to join in his Continental blockade of Britain.” I can deduce from this that Napoleon may have treated Portugal fairly if Portugal was not so close to England.

This is exactly what I’m looking for, since it describes Portugal becoming more distant with England. But since this is still pretty early in this passage, and since this feels like a tough passage, it makes sense to eliminate my way through the choices just to gain some confidence.

This is the tempting wrong answer in this set. While B might make some sense since supporting the French Revolution ultimately meant supporting France, paragraph 4 says that “the news of the French Revolution, however dulled by the delay, came as an exhilarating or terrifying revelation.” Since some people did support the French Revolution, and since the last paragraph does not list Portugal’s tepid support of the Revolution among Napoleon’s problems with the country, B has to be wrong.

C is wrong because it is also not listed among Napoleon’s issues with Portugal, even though Portugal did expel some French aliens.

D cannot be the answer, since the last paragraph states that France negotiated a peace with Spain, who instigated that war. Napoleon had other issues with Portugal that were unrelated to the war.

This is another difficult question, in which I am being asked to figure out the effects of the event described. I do not really have a good reference point to go to in the passage for this, since the passage does not directly consider what would happen when people withdrew support for the monarchy. All I have to go on is the last paragraph, when active opposition to the monarchy is described. In that paragraph, John VI is described as attacking those who opposed his rule, so I can assume that Church officials may have faced the same threat had they also opposed the monarchy.

The common people are discussed in paragraph 2 as being quite religious, but their feelings towards the monarchy are not as explicitly described. That makes A less likely to be the correct answer.

Paragraph 3 contradicts B, since the Freemasons are listed as desiring a “representative government,” and so would have been unlikely to support the monarchy.

Since I have no clue what this has to do with the Church, C feels unlikely, and I am hoping that D will be a clear right answer.

D is blessedly what I’m looking for—since it describes John VI attacking the Church for opposing his rule—and so has to be correct.

This is a fairly low-difficulty question; all I need to do is find an answer choice that suggests that there were few Portuguese liberals, or that most Portuguese were conservatives. That might require me to double check an answer choice against the passage, but I also might be able to discern the right answer immediately based on that criteria.

The only way this would be true is if the passage said something like “The queen and her son opposed all political minorities,” since that would identify Portuguese liberals as in the minority. But since the passage does not clearly state that, A is most likely wrong.

All that B tells me is, by virtue of the last paragraph, those liberals mentioned likely opposed John. I cannot discern if those liberals were in the minority from B. It is just as possible that John went out and persecuted members of the political majority who opposed him.

It is not clear what this has to do with political minorities or majorities, so C has to be wrong. Hopefully D is clearly correct.

This has to be correct. Paragraph 2 implies that the commoners made up a really large segment of the population, and outnumber the liberals mentioned in paragraph 3 as a “small minority.”

This is a strengthener in disguise, since the question stem is telling me that this new information will combine with information in the passage to reinforce an answer choice. This question is tricky, though, because the passage does not directly discuss what happened after the Napoleonic Wars. What does make contact with the passage is the claim in the question stem that “people demanded democratic reforms, including major restrictions on the power of monarchs.” This reminds me of the last paragraph, when the author describes John VI’s heavy-handed response to forces that sought to challenge Portugal’s monarchy. I am therefore looking for an answer which brings up threats to the monarchy.

This is essentially what I am looking for; the popular demand for democratic reforms mentioned in the question stem aligns with the last paragraph to suggest A. But this is a challenging question, so eliminating my way down is likely good strategy.

The new information in the passage does not obviously reference the Catholic Church, and so it is safe to eliminate B.

The passage does not relate Napoleon’s policies and stances with the Portuguese monarchy, so C is also easy to eliminate.

This is this question’s tempting wrong answer, since the passage mentions that the Freemasons sought democratic reforms in paragraph 3. However, D makes a logical error that is common to wrong answers on this exam. Just because the Freemasons fought for democratic reforms, that does not suggest that if democratic reforms were sought, that those reforms were the results of the Freemasons’ efforts. The reforms could have been caused by some entirely different entity, or event. Since D presumes too much, it has to be wrong.

This is a straightforward strengthener; I just need to find an answer choice that makes the claim from the passage more likely. Since there are many ways to strengthen a claim, it is usually not efficient to try to predict what the right answer might look like. Instead, it pays to be on guard for the wrong answer: one that either weakens the claim from the passage, or does not affect it at all.

If Brazil was a socially conservative country that resembled Portugal during John VI’s time, then A would be correct, but since I don’t know that on the basis of the passage, I cannot choose A.

B is correct because it is a textbook definition of someone being resistant to change: someone who revokes reforms. The first half of the question stem is mainly there to make the question harder than it really is.

I can confidently eliminate C for the same reason I could eliminate A: because I don’t really know enough about Brazil to draw a connection between C and John VI’s political values.

I also don’t have enough information to choose D, since there could be any number of reasons that do not relate to John VI’s resistance to change that could have gotten him deposed. B has to be the right answer.

This is a very rare question type. It is asking me to extrapolate an alternative explanation for an event in the passage—an explanation that is not mentioned in the passage—that is still in line with passage information. There is not really a way to predict what the right answer to this question might be, beyond knowing that whatever the answer choice is has to explain why the Portuguese ambassador would support the French, so I should be prepared to eliminate my way to the right answer.

A could be a good candidate to be the right answer, insofar as one can imagine that the Portuguese ambassador might show support for a government he was afraid of, and was in the power of. That said, I can imagine being utterly unconfident in my answer here because it is difficult to tell if this is a justifiable reading or not, so I would hold onto A and see if I could eliminate the other answer choices.

This is actually stated in paragraph 4, and so cannot be the right answer, since the question stem is asking for an “alternative explanation.”

This is weakly implied by the passage, since to support the French National Assembly is to be against monarchical government. But C does not actually offer an alternate explanation for why the ambassador applauded the French National Assembly, since C is arguably already implied by the passage argument as it is given.

D has to be wrong, since D offers no explanation at all. I need a positive reason to explain why the ambassador would applaud the French National Assembly, while D is something of a negative reason: that he might do so just because he didn’t feel strongly about it. D forces me to presume too much for it to be correct.

This is a direct main idea question, which is to be expected given how difficult the passage is. Because the passage describes a problem—there are so many images, and so many forces that demand that we keep producing images—its main idea is the solution given in the last paragraph: “The remedy lies in a new form of conservation—a conservation of manufactured images, as well as natural resources, that would provide ecological balance between the real world and the re-created one.” So I need to find an answer that has something to do with conserving images.

This answer choice is designed to trick me, because A is stated in paragraph 2: “The camera empowers everyone to make artistic judgments about importance, interest, or beauty.” Since this is something which is already happening, it cannot be related to “a new form of conservation,” which makes A incorrect.

The author is strongly against this, because this is the problem which the “new form of conservation” is designed to address, so I can safely eliminate B.

This has to be correct. It aligns with what we were looking for, and clearly resembles the problem the paragraph describes: that we are producing too many images, and so need to focus on conserving them instead of further proliferating new ones.

Governing is mentioned in the passage, but I can eliminate it because it is only one aspect of the problem that the author brings up, which is what happened once imaging technology became so widespread. D is not a central enough concern to qualify as the passage’s main idea.

While the overall passage is about image-making, its relationship to capitalism is one facet of it, so I know I need to refer to the specific passage discussion involving that relationship to answer the question. This is doubly true because this is an assumption question, so I’m looking for something which is unstated, but has to be true based off of the passage argument. The needs of the capitalist society are discussed in paragraph 4, which states that “A capitalist society requires a culture that is based on images,” but this is a fairly dense argument, and the denser the argument, the more assumptions are possible. So rather than try to predict an answer beforehand, this difficult question is a good candidate for eliminating my way to an answer choice by keeping paragraph 4 in mind.

This is incorrect because paragraph 4 suggests that advertising and entertainment are both there to “stimulate buying.” Since they share the same purpose, they are not being separated in a capitalist society.

This resonates with a few moments in the passage. Paragraph 3 mentions that “Picture-taking lends itself brilliantly” to two realms: “individual contemplation” and “surveillance and social utility.” That corresponds with “private perception” and “social order,” and this argument does lead into the claims about what capitalist society needs. However, even though the passage mentions that these two orders are separate, I’m not sure that the argument requires that “private perception” and “social order” be separated, so I would hold onto B but not necessarily choose it until I can eliminate the other answer choices.

There is nothing in the passage which clearly suggests that a capitalist society needs to separate these two. The only mention of diseases is in paragraph 5, which states that “Cameras are both the antidote and the disease,” but since this is not specifically discussed in relation to what capitalist society does or requires, C is a worse answer than B.

This is incorrect because paragraph 4 says the opposite: “The freedom to consume a variety of images and goods [economic consumption] is equated with freedom itself [free political choice].” D therefore has to be incorrect, and B correct.

This is asking for a choice that best resembles a claim made by the passage: in this case that images allow for quick responses. So I just need to eliminate answers which do not have anything to do with speed and accuracy.

This is an easy elimination because nothing in the answer choice has anything to do with speed.

I can’t see how B has anything to do with speed either.

This one similarly has nothing to do with speed.

This does, however, say something about speed. Traffic light cameras need to be fast in order to catch traffic offenders, and accurate so that those offenders can be correctly identified and then punished. D is therefore the best answer.

This just requires me to discern what statement in the answer choices confirms that the author dislikes capitalist society. This question is more difficult than it appears, since the author actually says quite a bit about why capitalist society is bad, so an elimination strategy here is as valid as looking for a choice which clearly indicates the author’s dislike of capitalist society.

On its face, A does not seem critical of capitalist society, but in the context of the passage, the author clearly thinks that this equation is a problem. The freedom to consume, according to the author in paragraphs 4 and 5, is to blame for the proliferation of images that the author thinks is a problem. So the freedom to consume, mistaken as political freedom in a capitalist society, is one reason to dislike capitalist society. A is therefore a good answer to choose.

It’s worth being wary of ambiguous words; B is safe to eliminate because there are too many ways to understand what it means to make “reality problematic.” The passage also does not really claim that this is something which capitalism does; the passage’s arguments about capitalism are focused on the ways it encourages the proliferation of images, not on the effect of those images on reality.

While this is mentioned in relation to capitalist society in paragraph 4, there is no clear sense that this is a bad thing, so I still feel strongly that A is the right answer.

This is mentioned before capitalist society is raised, and is not directly related to capitalist society, so I feel safe eliminating D.

This is a somewhat challenging question that is asking me to choose a claim that is related to the information in the question stem. Since the question talks about art, I can go to the parts of the passage that describe art; paragraph 2, for example, states that through the lens of a camera, “the most mundane subject constitutes art.” Since mug shots and fingerprints are pretty mundane—insofar as they are objects of utility, with a very direct and unartistic purpose—the notion that one can have an art exhibit featuring these kinds of images would support this claim from paragraph 2, so that is what I need to look for in the answer choices.

This is a claim made in paragraph 1. This is a tricky answer choice, because A supports the claim in the question stem, but the claim in the question stem does not clearly support A, since it has nothing to do with advertisements or bombs. That makes A incorrect.

This answer choice is trying to trick me in a different way: by only directly referencing one half of the information in the question stem—the mug shots and fingerprints are definitely ways people enforce laws—but not the first part about the art exhibit. Without that key piece of information, B has to be wrong.

This has to be correct. It is exactly what I am looking for: the claim from paragraph 2. After all, the question stem describes photographs that are viewed as art even though they were not intended to be viewed as art (since they were intended to enforce the law).

This choice is one last attempt to trick me, since art is a form of entertainment. But I do not know if the artist in the question stem is from a capitalist society, and so I cannot safely choose D.

This question is checking to see if I understand the author’s argument enough to imagine other ways it could be instituted. I know that the author is arguing for the conservation of images because the author is concerned with what happens to images under capitalism: how a capitalist society needs an unlimited supply of images. So I can imagine that the right answer will likely involve something which is meant to reign in capitalist tendencies.

A is safe to eliminate because the author does not have obvious concerns over architectural models. There isn’t quite a strong enough link to capitalism for A to be correct.

This is a great answer choice. It involves capitalism, and even hints at the logic of needing infinite images: because as long as there are ads, new images will be needed to sell what is advertised. B therefore gets at one way to address the author’s concerns over image production, which makes it the right answer.

This has to be wrong because the author sees the surveillance state as contributing to an overproduction of images; it would therefore not contribute to the author’s conservation efforts.

The notion of art that offends the public is not really discussed in the passage, which immediately makes me suspicious of D. D is definitely wrong, though, because while the author is concerned about how many images are produced, getting rid of art that might offend the public would actually not necessarily reduce the number of images. It is entirely possible that images that might offend the public would be replaced by images that would not offend the public, and so would have no net effect on the number of images in the world.

This is a strengthener question: one that is asking me to figure out what claim from the passage would be positively affected by this new information in the question stem. What I can discern is that, on the one hand, the information in the question stem suggests that cameras are only getting more effective, so I should be on the lookout for an answer choice which says something to that effect. On the other hand, we generally think that PET scans are a good thing, since they help us to detect health problems, so I should perhaps also be on the lookout for an answer which suggests that cameras can be good: a standout answer in a passage that feels like it is really down on imaging technology.

There isn’t anything in the question stem which corresponds to one’s “private life.” This answer might give me pause because we tend to think of medical information—like a PET scan—as private, but we also tend to think of our health problems as impersonal: as scientific, and so not having much to do with who we are as people, or our subjective selves. Given that, I can reluctantly eliminate A.

The information in the question stem may involve produced images, but they do not talk about how many images can be made. Rather, the info in the question stem is about how much more information cameras can provide. Since that is about image quality and not quantity, B has to be wrong.

That last part of the question stem stands out; I can’t figure out how satellite images and PET scans make reality obsolete. If anything, they both draw a great deal of attention to reality. In either case, I can safely eliminate C.

This is a good answer, and one that is better than A. It corresponds to what I was looking for—information about how the camera might benefit people—and I can reasonably assume that the author would view satellite imagery as potentially harmful: as a means of controlling other people through technology that can track you from above. D therefore has to be correct.

What a nice treat: a straightforward question asking me about the main idea of the passage. I know that the passage interrogates the wisdom that smaller class sizes are beneficial for students, and ends up arguing that it can be beneficial, but only under certain conditions, and that even then we cannot be sure that reducing class size is the best way to improve education outcomes (last paragraph).

That is exactly what I predicted, and so I can confidently choose A.

The passage does mention that this is one possible explanation for why small class sizes might benefit students, but the passage author is actually quite careful to avoid language as strong as B. Since B lacks the hesitance that pervades the author’s thoughts on class size reductions, B is worse than A.

There’s a clear pattern here, insofar as C is wrong for the same reasons that B is wrong: it overstates the passage claims. Paragraph 2 mentions that smaller class sizes primarily benefit people in early grades, but then is quick to mention that it becomes difficult to determine the role of smaller class sizes on student achievement later on. At the very least, the passage is not arguing C, since it goes on to consider why small class sizes might impact education, and how to maximize that impact.

Like B and C, D goes further than the passage author does. Smaller class sizes might help students, but the author also asserts that further research is needed to be certain of its effects and whether or not it is the best course of action, making D wrong.

This is a question asking me about the specific function of a part of the passage. Given what I know about the passage, I can actually predict an answer without going back to check it: that the claim mentioned in the question stem is there to explain why we should be cautious about embracing the idea that class size reductions are definitely going to be good.

A is easy to eliminate because of that “most.” The passage does not explicitly claim that there are no other more expensive ways to improve education than class size reductions. I can generally trust that statements that absolute stand out enough that I should be able to remember them from my initial reading of the passage.

This is a great candidate for the right answer. The immediate reason why the author brings up how many teachers it takes to teach smaller classes is in service to pointing out how expensive it is to reduce class sizes, which in turn is one reason to not fully embrace class sizes as a way to improve learning outcomes. I would choose B without even worrying about the other answer choices.

C is a trick answer choice: one that is only convincing because of how it tries to confuse me. The claim in the question stem is not supported by the idea that “class-size reductions are quite expensive.” Rather, it is the other way around: that the cost of hiring more teachers makes class-size reductions expensive. Since C reverses the rhetorical logic of the passage, it has to be wrong.

This has to be wrong because I know this claim is made quite late in the passage, whereas the claim quoted is from paragraph 1. Given how much argumentation occurs between these quotes, it is hard to imagine that something from paragraph 1 would establish something that is not addressed until the last paragraph.

To answer this question, I just need to figure out what the part of the passage quoted in the question stem serves as evidence for. Going back to paragraph 4, I know the observation is part of an attempt to explain why class-size reductions have academic benefits. The paragraph goes on to say that the “improved performance” of these teachers “pulls up the average”: that it accounts for the statistical evidence that class size reductions help, even if they may not help in every context. That gives me enough to hunt for a right answer.

The observation in the question stem is all about how those teachers using those techniques in small classes are helping students learn, while A describes some limit to that help. That’s enough of an incongruity to eliminate A.

The observation only mentions educators that do change their instructional styles, so it would not make sense for that observation to support B.

C lists some of the techniques that are involved in the observation mentioned in the question stem, but it is more about the classes, while the observation mentioned in the question stem is about the teachers. Since C has a different focus than the observation in the question stem, it cannot be correct.

If I was hunting for the right answer, I would have chosen D on the spot. It is exactly what I predicted the answer would be. But D also has to be right, since the other three answer choices are clearly wrong.

This question gives me a situation, and I need to figure out what effect the passage arguments would have on that situation. The question is asking me to assume that the teaching techniques mentioned in paragraph 3 are instituted: techniques that the passage says can take advantage of smaller class sizes and improve student learning. So I am looking for an answer which suggests that students in this state would benefit from those class-size reductions.

The passage is certainly concerned with how class-size reductions compare to other educational reforms, but the situation in the question stem does not discuss other reforms, so I cannot know whether or not class-size reductions would do more or less than those alternatives.

This is a really attractive answer choice because it echoes the author’s caveat from paragraph 2: “Most found evidence that smaller classes can benefit students, at least in the early grades, but only under certain conditions.” However, later on in the passage, the author offers an explanation: “Kindergarten and first-grade teachers tend to use educational techniques that work best in small classes” (paragraph 4). The fact that those techniques are exactly the ones mentioned in the question stem—“hands-on projects and personal interactions”—is especially suggestive; perhaps if other grades also used those techniques, there is at least the possibility that they also might see the benefits of smaller class sizes. I am not quite ready to either choose or eliminate B, so I will keep my eye out for a better answer choice.

This has to be incorrect because one would expect at least some improvement to student performance if class sizes were reduced and teachers were employing the right techniques. To assume otherwise would go against the author’s main argument.

This is a tough one, but I would ultimately choose D over B. Having to choose between them makes me scrutinize the passage even more closely. B is ultimately incorrect because paragraph 4 explains why people think class sizes help at all: because of the techniques used “in the early elementary grades” that are not used “beyond first or second grade.” So even though the author keeps on mentioning that “reducing class sizes does appear to improve student performance in early grades,” the author never says that improvements beyond that point are impossible. Paragraph 4 instead implies the opposite, and therefore makes D correct: if those techniques used in kindergarten and first grade were used in other grades, educational outcomes might improve.

This is a deceptive question. On the one hand, it is a straightforward weakener; I just need to find an answer which challenges what the author claims happens when class sizes are reduced. On the other hand, the author has quite a few things to say about the effects of class-size reductions, and so many different weakeners are possible. I will just have to be on my guard: both to get rid of answers that do not affect the author’s argument, and to be sensitive to those that negatively affect it.

This choice suggests that this is meant to be a high difficulty question. The first half of the answer choice is in keeping with the passage argument; the passage states that class-size reductions are effective in early grades. So if I was in a rush, I might bypass A. But the second half of the answer choice goes against the passage argument, since the author also claims the benefits of a smaller class size depend on certain conditions: among them that teachers must use “methods that take advantage of smaller classes” (paragraph 3). A is therefore the correct answer because it weakens this observed effect of class-size reductions: that they are only effective if teachers use methods that are suited for the smaller class size.

B is incorrect even though the passage mentions raising teacher salaries as a possible way to improve student outcomes because the passage never makes a direct comparison between these two approaches. That means that B doesn’t make enough contact with the passage to weaken it.

C has to be wrong because it actually has nothing to do with class size per se. C is talking about ignoring class size, when to weaken the passage, the correct answer must suggest that the passage’s arguments about class size are incorrect.

This is yet another indicator that this is meant to be a difficult question. D could weaken the passage argument, but it is missing a key element that would make it correct: any mention that these teachers are in small classes. The passage never says that methods suited to small classes would improve academic achievement levels in all contexts; they will only work if they are in small classes. Since D is missing this key piece of information, it does not suggest anything about small class sizes, and so has to be incorrect.

Since the entire passage is about professors, it can be difficult to predict what assumption the question stem is referring to. I can at least prepare for the assumptions that involve the main idea, though. The passage argues that colleges’ preference for professors who are not local is a problem because it means professors are not tied to place, and are more likely to teach ideas and theories that are similarly not tied to place.

This can be eliminated quickly because the passage does not really discuss being a generalist or a specialist. A professor can be either and still be prey to the problems that the passage raises.

This is a classic trap answer choice that seems tempting because it vaguely fits what I’m looking for. But I can eliminate B because 1) the passage states the opposite in paragraph 1 when it says that professors “may have geographical preferences,” and 2) because the passage has to do with geography, but not geographical preferences. One can have a preference regarding what kind of place one wants to work in, or what part of the country, without understanding and prioritizing that sense of the local that the author says professors lack.

This is a good candidate for a right answer, since that feels like one way to crystallize the passage arguments, but in a way that is not already stated in the passage. To say that “professors are expected to owe no allegiance to geographical territory; they’re supposed to belong to the boundless world of books, ideas, and eternal truths,” we do have to assume C: that ideas are more important to them than specific places are. That makes C the right answer

This is easy to eliminate because the passage is more generally about where professors work, and not where they went to school. D also contradicts paragraph 2, which states that “the majority of U.S. college students attend institutions in their home states.”

This is an uncommon question type which asks me to come up with a generalized description of the passage argument. I know that the passage wants professors to be better tied to place, so I just need to find an answer choice that describes a discipline that involves place: like geography or cartography.

This is perhaps the opposite of what I’m looking for, since mathematics is usually thought of as abstract and not tied to a specific place. I can easily eliminate A.

This is closer to the right answer than A, since societies do have to be in specific places, but sociology does not necessarily need to take place into account. It is also a discipline of abstract theories regarding how groups of people operate. Because I’m unsure here, I might keep B for now, but would be ready to eliminate it should one of the other two answer choices be better.

I feel better about eliminating B because it is like C, insofar as both could be tied to place, but do not necessarily have to be. Political theories can be abstract and apply globally, and so do not need to take specific places into account. Since both B and C cannot be right, D has to be.

This is clearly the right answer. Even theories of ecology will need to be tied to specific ecologies, and therefore specific places. D is therefore in line with the author’s hopes: for professors to care about specific places, and the concrete ideas and issues that come from living in a particular location.

This is a simple question. I just need to check and see which answer choice has, as evidence, a concrete example: a full example that involves specific individuals in specific situations. If I have prepared correctly, I would know that there is only one concrete example in the passage: in paragraph 4, when the passage describes the “case of one individual who, having received his degrees from the university in his home state and having worked at that institution as a lecturer on temporary contract, was told by the department chair that he was ‘too much a native’ ever to become a permanent faculty member.” This is a textbook example of a concrete example; it could only be made more concrete if the passage named the individual or the university.

This is mentioned in paragraph 1, and is not backed up with any examples, concrete or otherwise, so A can be eliminated.

B jumps out because this is the point made in paragraph 4: where the only concrete example in the passage is given. That example is given to support B, since the lecturer faces a prejudice by his institution’s hiring committee simply because he is a local: “too much a native.” I can choose B without even worrying about the other answer choices.

C can be quickly eliminated because there are no other concrete examples in the passage.

This is also wrong because it is not supported by an example.

This is another question that asks me to abstract the passage argument. I need to find a college course that is somehow grounded in place, and in the local.

I can eliminate A because it has nothing to do with place.

The author mentions science and the creative arts, but does not at any point recommend crossing them. I can eliminate B easily because this is a classic wrong answer choice that tests whether I am paying attention to the arguments, or if I am just noting what subjects are mentioned in the passage.

This fits what I’m looking for in the right answer, since it involves learning (“applied classroom concepts”) and something related to a specific and local place: in this case, a “community garden project.” C also seems to fit the author’s wish as stated in paragraph 4: of “transforming the world immediately outside the classroom into a laboratory.”

This is incorrect because it better resembles the professors that the author has a problem with, since they leave their localities in order to find work.

This question is asking me to think through the reasoning and motivation for the author’s stance. I know the author wants learning to be more local because the author is concerned that what is being taught in classrooms is too abstract: is not concrete enough, or related enough to the real world. The right answer should say something to that effect.

This is a great candidate for the right answer. It resembles the main idea I’ve been going back to over and over again in this question set, and what I predicted the right answer should be.

I’ve already seen this reference to paragraph 2 in another question. Students are already attending colleges and universities in their home states, so there is no reason why the author would be motivated by B to change the status quo.

This is a pretty compelling answer choice, since it also mentions a shift to a more local-friendly approach to education. The word “replace,” though, gives me pause, because that’s a pretty drastic claim to make: that an education based on place and the local is going to be better than one based on ideas. A quick check of the passage confirms that C goes too far; paragraph 6 states that the author wants students to be exposed to both “the world of ideals and scholarship, yes, but also in the very real world.” So if I had to choose between C and A, A is the better choice.

D makes me feel better about C because they are very similar answers, since they both talk about replacing or overshadowing what is currently being done in favor of particularity and the local. Since both cannot be correct, they both have to be wrong, which makes A correct.

Assumption questions often depend on knowing the exact language used in an argument, so it makes sense to check paragraph 5 and try to predict the assumption. Paragraph 5 argues that “professors should include local content in their courses” because doing so will “tend to erase the artificial boundary between the roles of student and citizen.” One glaring assumption that the passage makes is that such a boundary exists; note that that is not a claim that the passage directly states, but that the passage needs readers to believe for the argument to make sense. So hopefully an answer choice will say something like “there is a boundary between being a student and a citizen.”

A clarifies the trick behind this question: the answer choices will use quotes from paragraph 5. Luckily, I can eliminate A because paragraph 5 does not clearly suggest that students should or should not be able to criticize “concrete realizations about observable communities.”

B can be eliminated because it is proposing something quite drastic: that studying localities should exclude scholarship from the social sciences. A quick scan of the passage suggests that the author does have some problems with the social sciences, but does not go as far as B does.

C gives me another quote from paragraph 5, but it is a quote that I am looking for: the assumption I predicted. So choosing C makes sense.

D is another choice that is meant to tempt me by referencing that claim from paragraph 2: that most college students “attend institutions in their home states.” However, that does not say anything about how often professors or students travel in general, and nothing in the passage requires that students not travel a great deal. I can eliminate D because it is beyond the scope of the passage.

This is a straightforward weakener that is asking me about the main idea (since the main idea is about the “majority of college professors”), so I can approach this question with confidence. I know the passage is all about how the author has a problem with how the majority of professors are not tied to a specific place, so I am either looking for a choice that challenges that, or that suggests there is something wrong with a place-based education: for some reason to not take the author’s recommendation.

The passage does not discuss how committed professors are to teaching, so A would have no effect on the passage argument. I can safely eliminate it.

B is definitely relevant to the passage argument, but it actually ends up making the passage argument stronger. If B is true, then professors are even more disconnected from their local areas than the passage suggests, which in turn makes the author’s concern over professors being disconnected from specific places more urgent.

Nothing in the passage requires that professors should or should not be concerned with social issues, since social issues are not necessarily related to place; that’s been a problem with other answer choices. C therefore has to be wrong.

This is a good prospect for the right answer. While it does not disprove the author’s argument, it makes that argument less likely, since it suggests that these professors would have some sense of living locally that might filter into their teaching. D also fits what I was looking for, since it implies that these professors do have some ties to specific places.

This question is essentially asking what makes actors unique. The phrase “1919 strike” is mentioned in paragraph 2: “In the 1919 strike, however, the denizens of the U.S. stage were able to exploit their commodity status.” Earlier in the paragraph, that commodity status is described as unique to performers: “Performance, though, is unusual in that it is a labor process exhibited before and consumed by an audience. The individual actor both produces the commodity and embodies it.” The right answer should therefore mention that actors were unique because they could exploit their status as commodities: that they were selling themselves, and not just their work or productivity.

Is a great candidate for the right answer, insofar as the passage begins by describing actors in this way. However, that description does not really have much to do with actors embodying a commodity, or with the 1919 strike. Paragraph 2 actually gets more specific than A; it is not just that actors are “weavers of dreams,” but also that “the weaver and the dream are inextricably bound together.” So A is very likely wrong; I would hang onto it, but look for a better answer choice.

Is exactly what I was looking for. It is more specific than A, and pertains more to the quote about the 1919 strike. B is therefore correct.

This is similar to A, insofar as the culture industry is not discussed in relation to the 1919 strike, and because there are many other kinds of industrial workers that are part of the culture industry who are not actors, meaning that producing objects in the culture industry is not specific enough to actors to make C correct.

Paragraph 2 does describe the role of actors in the “obliteration of the factory,” but the strike of 1919 seems designed to challenge that obliteration. If the “obliteration of the factory” meant that “the economic world was divided into an unpleasant sphere where goods were produced and a gratifying sphere where they were consumed”—in other words, in a separation of production and consumption—the actors are described as doing away with that separation, insofar as actors were both. That makes D incorrect, and B the right answer.

This question is asking me to analogize: to define what it means to be a professional actor, and then pick an answer choice that would also fit that definition. I know a definition of acting is given in paragraph 2: “Performance, though, is unusual in that it is a labor process exhibited before and consumed by an audience. The individual actor both produces the commodity and embodies it—the weaver and the dream are inextricably bound together.” So in other words, I am looking for an answer choice in which the worker is also the work: is doing work that very directly involves the worker’s body, and not some external object produced by that body.

Is the opposite of what I am looking for, because weavers not embody what they weave. A weaver produces a garment or something woven: something outside of themselves, unlike an actor whose body is part of the production. A is meant to catch test-takers who will too-quickly judge A to be right because the passage describes actors as “weavers of dreams,” but it is incorrect.

A doctor is a bit closer to the right answer, insofar as we typically do not think of doctors as producing something in the way, say, a furniture maker produces furniture, but a doctor provides expertise, which is not necessarily embodied in the same way that an actor’s product is embodied. So I might hang onto B, but look for a reason to eliminate it.

C is too much like A; both weavers and sculptors produce something outside of themselves, and so do not resemble an actor.

This is a much better answer than B. Whereas one can imagine that a doctor could help a patient without even being present to the patient—perhaps over the phone—a massage therapist has to be there for a massage client, and the massage therapist’s body is part of what that therapist is selling: that is, the ability of that body to produce a product in the massage. D is therefore correct.

It always pays to note what authors say about themselves, implicitly or explicitly, and what authors say about others in their professions. Paragraph 1 states that “Most often, historians have allowed the dreams that actors weave to take precedence over the process of weaving. They have prioritized the moment of consumption over the moment of production. However, actors’ dealings with their employers, like those of many other laborers, were fraught with tension.” In other words, the author is blaming most historians for only paying attention to the artistic element of theater work, and not its business or economic elements. That gives me something to look for in a right answer.

Easy elimination. The passage discusses early twentieth-century theater, but the author does not suggest that most historians do not focus on early twentieth-century theater.

This is a good prospect for the right answer, because the author does suggest that most historians do believe in the “weavers of dreams” metaphor. However, the author does not say that he does not believe this. The first sentence actually suggests the opposite; to say that “To borrow a metaphor, actor are ‘weavers of dreams’” without any qualification implies that the author also believes that this phrase describes actors. Since the author would agree with other historians on B, B has to be wrong.

This fits the description of what I was looking for, since the “economic realities of the theater” is a good way of describing the “moment of production” and “actors’ dealings with their employers.” C is therefore correct.

D is meant to tempt us because it does resemble the main argument of the passage regarding how actors were in an unequal relationship with theater businesspeople. But D has a major red flag: it does not limit itself to talking about actors. D is therefore clearly wrong because it goes beyond the scope of the passage.

I know that Ewen’s phrase comes up in the second paragraph; I would have made note of it during my initial reading of the passage because it is a quote from an authority figure. In that paragraph, Ewen explains the term: “the economic world was divided into an unpleasant sphere where goods were produced and a gratifying sphere where they were consumed.” So perhaps the term has something to do with this division: a separation of production and consumption. This gets better specified in the next sentence: “Performance, though, is unusual in that it is a labor process exhibited before and consumed by an audience.” For performance to be unusual, that has to suggest that the norm in this economic world in which the factory is obliterated is for the labor process to not be exhibited: for it to be invisible to the audience.

This answer choice is testing whether or not I have a strong grasp of the quoted phrase and the passage, since A is a believable way to understand a factory being obliterated. I can eliminate A, though, since job losses are not discussed in paragraph 2, and industrial job losses are not discussed at all in a passage that is about the entertainment industry.

B has a different problem than A. While B is somewhat implied by the passage—the existence of the two spheres requires that consumer goods be produced, and one can easily imagine that industries had to produce some consumer goods—there is no clear way that B could correspond to the “obliteration of the factory,” since “obliteration” clearly has negative connotations, and B is a very neutral statement. B is therefore incorrect.

This is exactly what I am looking for. It also allows for the negative tone that was lacking in B, since there is something negative about hiding people’s work: especially when that work is publicly consumed.

D is like A, but worse. It similarly checks to see if I was paying attention, since paragraph 2 does implicitly discuss a development in the working world, but it’s hard to call that a “new model of production.” It is not clear how “new” this world of the obliterated factory is. D therefore has to be wrong.

This is a classic strengthener; I just need to determine which answer choice either implicitly or explicitly serves as evidence for the claim in the question stem. This claim is made in paragraph 1, but the author argues for and mentions this claim in several of the following paragraphs, so I need to scan the entire passage for evidence used to support that claim. The most direct evidence for it comes in paragraph 3: “Theater managers began to group their theaters into circuits, a strategy that strengthened their bargaining position immeasurably because they could book several weeks of a touring company’s business in a single transaction.” This strengthening of the position of theater managers is also implicitly a weakening of the position of actors, since it is involves decreasing their bargaining power. Surprisingly, there is not much more direct evidence for this claim in the passage, so I can go into the passage looking for this as the right answer. Alternatively, I can eliminate my way through the choices by getting rid of any that do not support the claim in the question stem.

This quote contextualizes the economic character of acting, but on its own, it does not clearly have anything to do with the dynamics between actors and businessmen, nor does it clearly suggest that one was more powerful than the other. That makes A wrong.

I can safely eliminate B because it feels a lot like A; both talk about performance and the theater world in the abstract, but do not directly mention actors or businessmen.

C at least mentions actors, and it is easy to believe that this segmentation—a word that some will believe is a negative word—is due to businessmen. But that latter link is so weak that it’s worth double checking the passage to confirm C. C’s quote comes from paragraph 4, and does indeed paint a dire picture of what acting was like for most actors, but describing the way in which actors may have been disempowered does not necessarily suggest that businessmen were more powerful. I would therefore check D to see if it is a better answer, and be ready to eliminate C.

This is exactly what I was looking for, so C has to be incorrect and D has to be correct.

This question is just testing my local knowledge of the passage. The reference to the blue paint mentioned in the question stem is in paragraph 2: “In the seventeenth century, for example, the artificially produced pigment blue verditer was devised as a cheaper and more workable alternative to the expensive pigments azurite and smalt.” However, because the question stem is asking about the sixteenth century while the quote is about the seventeenth century, I should expect to have to speculate beyond what the passage states. The main takeaway I can discern is that blue paint was at one point expensive, but got cheaper by the seventeenth century.

I can eliminate A because the quote suggests the opposite: it was possible to make blue paint out of “azurite and smalt,” but it would have been very expensive.

This is an OK candidate for the right answer; if blue paint does not get cheaper until the seventeenth century, I may be able to assume that it was still expensive in the sixteenth, and one might use an expensive paint for one’s house to show that one is wealthy. That “may” in the answer choice really helps make this choice attractive, since it is a weak statement, and weak statements are easier to justifiably affirm. However, I am still uneasy with B because of how many logical steps it takes me to justify that answer choice, so I will check and see if any of the other answer choices are better.

The quote does not mention anything about the colors fading. This might be a reference to the quote earlier in the paragraph about house painters—“House painters constantly seek brightly colored pigments, which are both inexpensive and stable”—but that actually suggests the opposite: that house colors like blue would not fade quickly. Without a more direct reference to what house paints used to be like before the seventeenth century, C has to be wrong.

I have to work much harder to justify D than I have to justify B. Maybe D is a reference the “brightly colored pigments” used by house painters, but that is a real stretch. Since the color is not mentioned in paragraph 2, I feel confident eliminating D and choosing B.

This is a straightforward main idea question, since the passage is primarily about what kinds of research this fact enables. The author is very clearly excited about this; paragraph 1 states that this state of affairs is what architectural paint research studies, and that “the accumulation of successive paint layers on architectural elements is now regarded as an important archeological resource” (paragraph 3). So I am looking for an answer choice which has good things to say about architectural paint research.

This is negative in tone when I am looking for something positive in tone, so it is safe to eliminate A.

B is a great candidate for the right answer because it follows passage information, and has the tone I’m looking for with regards to architectural paint research. That’s enough for me to choose B.

This wrong answer choice works by twisting a claim from the passage. The passage does indeed distinguish between easel/wall painters and house painters, but that distinction has more to do with painting. It has nothing to do with status.

This makes no sense in the context of the passage, since architectural paint research is tied to paint layers; it is not meant to keep paint layers from happening.

To answer this question, I need to account for the intended function of the quote: what role the quote plays in the author’s argument. The quote appears as part of a sentence: “A significant paint layer may be more readily dated by a reference in a family letter which states ‘Today my chambers painted a fine blue’ than by embarking on sophisticated pigment analysis.” The letter is therefore evidence demonstrating that a scientific study of a paint layer may not be the most efficient way to date something: that these outside elements in which people talk about their paint might be more useful.

This is an initially attractive answer choice because the passage does mention blue paint earlier in the passage (and because it is mentioned in an earlier question). However, this choice is meant to test whether I am paying attention to what the question is asking for. The reference to paragraph 5 is self-contained; it is making a point local to that paragraph, and is not a reference back to the blue paint mentioned earlier in the passage, so A has to be incorrect.

This can be quickly eliminated because neither the quote nor the explication of the quote mentions exterior decoration. I know that the quote is making a point about how one can learn about a paint layer, which B does not clearly have anything to do with.

This is exactly what I am looking for, so I can choose C with confidence.

This is a quick elimination because there is no clear sense of warning in the quote given. The author in that quote is endorsing a form of evidence, not warning about the dangers of using a single piece of evidence.

This is a straightforward purpose question that is asking me why the author wrote this piece. The main idea of the passage is that “architectural paint research has immense potential” (paragraph 1). The author makes this argument because of the various insights and other pieces of information that can come from that research.

This makes sense as the right answer, since the passage sings the praises of architectural paint research.

This is a wrong answer that checks to make sure I understand the main idea of the passage. The end of the passage does mention that there are some issues with architectural paint research, but a careful reader will notice that the author’s argument goes past this point to ultimately defend this kind of research because of “its potential to offer detailed insight into the social as well as the structural and decorative history of a building.”

The passage does not offer enough specific advice for C to be correct.

The passage does present such findings, but those findings are quickly discarded in order to establish the overall value of architectural paint research. That means that D cannot be the primary purpose of the passage, and must be incorrect.

This uncommon question type requires me to define the way the author researches, or the way the author prefers to research. Looking at the passage does not immediately bring much to mind, save for the start of paragraph 5: when the author advocates “collating and synthesizing all existing evidence.” I will likely have more luck eliminating my way down to the right answer, but perhaps an answer choice will match that quote by suggesting that a researcher should collect as much evidence as possible.

This is easy to eliminate, since the passage does not describe any experiments, or suggest that experiments are a good mode of research.

The passage describes pretty practical forms of research: collecting artifacts and physical things. Theories do not really get mentioned, so B cannot be correct.

The passage does not really mention the importance of statistics, so C is also worth eliminating. That means D has to be correct.

I’m not sure I would have chosen D on first glance, but with the other answers clearly wrong, I can see why D would be right: because a holistic approach can be one that is defined as “collating and synthesizing all existing evidence,” insofar as “holistic” means trying to take the whole of something into account.

This is a tricky question to attempt to answer without using the answer choices, since something which is not seen can either be invisible or nonexistent. Given that ambiguity, it is probably easier to eliminate the wrong answers first.

Paragraph 2 describes houngans as if people can see them in voodoo sessions, so I can eliminate A.

This has to be correct. Loas are described in the passage as divine beings who possess human bodies. That suggests that they are not visible themselves, but instead need to possess a person to manifest.

These are mentioned in paragraph 2 as if they are visible.

Same goes for D, since both are participants in voodoo rituals.

To answer this question, I need to first understand the distinctions between Mariani and Nansoucri voodoo. Paragraph 3 describes Mariani voodoo as for tourists, while paragraph 4 claims that Nansoucri voodoo as just for Haitians. In Mariani voodoo, the audience is passive and safe from what they are seeing, while the audience in Mariani are active participants in the voodoo ritual: up to the point that they are available for possession. So I am looking for an answer choice that breaks one of these distinctions: That makes Mariani and Nansoucri more similar to each other.

This appears to be something that the two forms of voodoo have in common—that people are visibly possessed—so A would just maintain the status quo (and so not weaken the distinction in question). That makes A incorrect.

This is an initially attractive answer choice, because the audience is largely viewed as safe, but B is a bit too ambiguous for me to feel good about this as an answer choice, since there are dangerous elements in the ritual: animal sacrifices and fire leaping, for example. I will therefore be on the lookout for a better answer than B.

This is attractive for similar reasons to B, which makes this a suspicious choice. Instead of affecting the idea that the audience is safe in Mariani voodoo, C affects the idea that Mariani voodoo audiences are passive. Since B and C are so similar, both are equally unlikely. Paragraph 3 also mentions how choreographed Mariani voodoo is, so C is still too ambiguous to easily determine its effect on the passage argument.

This has to be correct. Unlike B and C, who gets possessed in a voodoo ritual is a very clear distinction between the two forms of ritual. Paragraph 3 states that audience members in Mariani are free from “inadvertent possession,” while the audience in Nansoucri are not. So if Mariani audiences are getting possessed, the two forms of voodoo ritual become less distinct.

Though this term is given in the question stem without a paragraph reference, the term comes right at the beginning of the passage, so it is likely one that I should have some definition of. Paragraph 1 explains the term: “The visitor to Haiti finds that the ‘real voodoo’ is kept hidden, while a staged version is offered readily.’ So I know that the term refers to something that is staged: that is given in ways that fulfill expectations, and is not necessarily the real thing.The charging of admission at voodoo sessions: I is true, because it is one definition of “commodity”: something that is for sale.

The molding of voodoo o fit audience expectations: II has to be correct because it fits the definition of “staged,” which is given to us as part of the definition of “culture as commodity.”
The sale of voodoo trinkets and other artifacts: The passage does not describe selling voodoo-related artifacts, so III is incorrect.

I is correct, but it is not the only correct option, so A is incorrect.

B is incorrect because III is incorrect.

This is correct because both I and II are correct.

III is incorrect, so D has to be.

There is no way to efficiently answer this question without scanning through the passage to check if there is a mention of each answer choice. Relying on memory is risky, as is trying to confirm that something does not occur, so it is easiest to prioritize eliminating the wrong answers.

This is an easy elimination, because mambos and hougans are distinguished by their genders.

Mambos and hougans have roles that are explained in the second paragraph, so this has to be wrong.

The passage does not describe costumes. This is still a difficult choice to choose, though, since the end of paragraph 3 mentions “costume changes,” so it makes sense to check D just to be safe.

Paragraph 2 mentions a belief system, so I can eliminate D, and confirm that C is the right answer.

This question type is less complicated than it seems. Irony is a really complicated concept, and one that is so context-dependent that people can easily disagree over whether something is ironic or not. Luckily, while the right answer will be ironic, the three wrong answers will almost always just be claims that are not fully found in the passage. It is therefore usually easier to eliminate my way through this kind of question.

I can eliminate A because paragraph 2 claims that mambos and hougans are influenced by the loas insofar as they are possessed by them. The passage does not clearly suggest that the mambos and hougans, in turn, influence the loas.

I can eliminate B because while the passage does describe loas as inhabiting human bodies, it does not suggest that they “deign” to do so: that there is some choice on their part to do something that they are unlikely to do because of what they are. The passage actually suggests that they are invoked, which may implies that they do not necessarily choose to possess people.

The passage does not discuss audiences who seek authentic voodoo, so C cannot be correct.

This has to be true via the process of elimination, but also because these claims are made in paragraph 3. That is really all I need to know to choose D.