Digital SAT Mock Test - 5 - SAT MCQ

Choice 3 is the best answer because it most effectively uses data from the table to complete the statement. The table shows that on day 1, the menu for NASA’s Gemini missions included sugar cookie cubes for meal B.
Choice 1 is incorrect because according to the table, shrimp cocktail was served on day 4, not day 1; moreover, the item was served for meal C, not meal B, as this choice claims
Choice 2 is incorrect because according to the table, hot cocoa was served on day 3, not on day 1; moreover, the item was served for meal A, not for meal C, as this choice claims.
Choice 4 is incorrect because according to the table, chicken and vegetables were served on day 2, not on day 1; moreover, the item was served for meal B, not for meal A, as this choice claims.

Choice 2 is the best answer. The lighter bars show what happened when the announcement was to come before the election, and the darker bars show what happened when the announcement was to come after the election. For all three of the outcomes, the light and dark bars are virtually the same, demonstrating that the announcement timing didn’t actually make a difference.
Choice 1 is incorrect. This accurately describes some data from the graph, but it doesn’t weaken the hypothesis. It doesn’t include the “announcement after election” data for comparison.
Choice 3 is incorrect. This accurately describes some data from the graph, but it doesn’t weaken the hypothesis. It doesn’t include the “announcement after election” data for comparison.
Choice 4 is incorrect. This accurately describes some data from the graph, but it doesn’t weaken the hypothesis. It doesn’t include the “announcement before election” data for comparison.

Choice 1 is the best answer. In one example, musicians made less money than expected by using the “pay as you wish” model. In the other example, a musician made more money than expected. This suggests that some musicians may have more success than others using the “pay as you wish” model.
Choice 2 is incorrect. This inference isn’t supported. In the examples provided, the individual musician was more successful with the “pay as you wish” model than the band was.
Choice 3 is incorrect. This inference isn’t supported. The passage provides no instances in which musicians changed the suggested prices of their songs or albums, nor does it mention this as a possibility.
Choice 4 is incorrect. This inference isn’t supported. The text never discusses the differences in popularity of different musicians, so there is no basis to make this inference.

Choice 3 is the best answer. The text says that the cerebellum has long been thought to regulate motor functioning, but new research shows that it may also have other functions—including regulating emotion and social behavior and some connection to motivation and rewards processing.

Choice 1 is incorrect. The VTA is described as “a center for motivation and reward processing,” and the discovery of the pathway between the VTA and the cerebellum supports the theory that the cerebellum is involved in functions other than motor coordination.

Choice 2 is incorrect. The text says that recent research has identified this pathway, but it doesn’t discuss any previous “widely accepted claims” about the pathway’s function. The “widespread acknowledgement” mentioned early in the passage is about the cerebellum alone, not its connection to the VTA.

Choice 4 is incorrect. The text never discusses any technological limitations or any new technologies.

Choice 3 is the best answer. The text describes how Miranda circulated, edited, and added footnotes to “Letter to the Spanish Americans,” and it claims that the letter and its author would have “remained insignificant” if it weren’t for Miranda’s efforts.

Choice 1 is incorrect. The text only says that Viscardo wrote the letter and that Miranda edited it: it never suggests that the original authorship of the letter is up for debate.

Choice 2 is incorrect. This contradicts the text. The text says that Miranda edited and footnoted the letter, but it identifies Viscardo as the letter’s author. It also never identifies certain arguments as more eloquent than others.

Choice 4 is incorrect. This is outside the scope of the text. The paragraph describes Miranda’s role in the creation and distribution of the letter, but it doesn’t get into the effects of the letter on other people.

• Choice D is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of gender roles in Shakespeare’s comedies. As used in this context, “prescribed” would mean laid down as rules. The text indicates that the characters in the comedies often defy gender roles that are “socially dictated” (even if most characters do return to those roles eventually) and that scholars have been very interested in these acts of defiance. This context indicates that what the characters are rebelling against are standards of behavior prescribed by the society of the time.
• Choice A is incorrect because saying that expectations about gender were “interjected,” or suddenly inserted between other things, wouldn’t make sense in context. There’s no suggestion in the text that the issue of gender roles was inserted between other things or was an interruption in a larger discussion.
• Choice B is incorrect because the text indicates that Shakespeare depicts characters rebelling against expectations about gender that have been “socially dictated,” not expectations that society has “committed,” or carried out, entrusted, or promised.
• Choice C is incorrect because the text indicates that Shakespeare depicts characters rebelling against expectations about gender that have been “socially dictated,” not expectations that have been “illustrated,” or clarified with examples. Although it’s possible for expectations about gender roles to be illustrated, there’s nothing in the text to indicate that characters in Shakespeare’s comedies rebel against illustrations of gender expectations.

• Choice D is the best answer because it most accurately states the main idea of the text. The speaker describes the experience of being “weary” and “tired” and going to bed to seek “dear repose” (that is, sleep), but instead of sleeping, the speaker is kept awake (“keep my drooping eyelids open wide”) by thoughts of a friend (“my thoughts... [Begin] a zealous pilgrimage to thee”).
• Choice A is incorrect because the text makes it clear that the speaker isn’t asleep; thoughts about the friend are keeping the speaker awake (“keep my drooping eyelids open wide”).
• Choice B is incorrect because the speaker isn’t talking about taking a literal trip when referring to “a zealous pilgrimage.” Rather, the speaker is referring to the experience of thinking about the friend, of taking “a journey in my head.”
• Choice C is incorrect because the text indicates that the speaker and the friend aren’t in the same place and having a conversation. Rather, the speaker is at home and thinking of the friend, who is somewhere else (“from far where I abide”).

• Choice B is the best answer. The convention being tested is the coordination of main clauses within a sentence. This choice correctly uses a comma and the coordinating conjunction “but” to join the first main clause (“the Alvarez…out”) and the second main clause (“it left … extinctions”).
• Choice A is incorrect because when coordinating two longer main clauses such as these, it’s conventional to use a comma before the coordinating conjunction.
• Choice C is incorrect because it results in a run-on sentence. The two main clauses are fused without punctuation and/or a conjunction.
• Choice D is incorrect because it results in a comma splice. Without a conjunction following it, a comma can’t be used in this way to join two main clauses. 

• Choice C is the best answer. The convention being tested is the use of punctuation between titles and proper nouns. No punctuation is needed to set off the proper noun “Yuree Lee” from the title that describes Lee, “plant cell biologist.” Because “Yuree Lee” is essential information identifying the “plant cell biologist,” no punctuation is necessary.
• Choice A is incorrect because no punctuation is needed.
• Choice B is incorrect because no punctuation is needed.
• Choice D is incorrect because no punctuation is needed before or after the proper noun “Yuree Lee.” Setting the biologist’s name off with commas suggests that it could be removed without affecting the coherence of the sentence, which isn’t the case.

• Choice D is the best answer because it provides the most direct support from the table for the claim that the plants growing in close proximity to other plants gained an advantage at an early developmental stage. The table shows the total number of juvenile plants from five species that were found growing on bare ground and in patches of vegetation as well as the percentage of the total number of each species that were growing in patches of vegetation. For each of the five species, more than 50% of the juvenile plants were growing in patches of vegetation. The text notes, however, that a random distribution of plants across the landscape should result in only about 15% of the plants being found in patches of vegetation. In other words, for each of the five species, the percentage of juvenile plants found growing in patches of vegetation was substantially higher than could be explained by chance alone. This finding supports the claim in the text: if plants growing in patches are overrepresented among plants that have survived to the juvenile stage, as the data show they are, then it suggests that it’s advantageous for plants at an early stage of development to grow in patches of vegetation.
• Choice A is incorrect because the statement that less than 75% of juvenile plants were found growing in patches of vegetation, while true, doesn’t clearly support the claim that the plants growing in close proximity to other plants gained an advantage at an early developmental stage. Saying that less than 75% of plants were found in patches doesn’t indicate how the percentage growing in patches compares with the percentage that would be expected to grow in patches on the basis of chance alone, which is the information necessary to evaluate whether the claim in the text has support in the table. Put another way, if the percentage of plants found growing in patches was 15% or less, it would be true that less than 75% were found in patches, but the data would in fact weaken the claim in the text, not strengthen it, since the data would show that growing in patches wasn’t advantageous.
• Choice B is incorrect because only 12 plants of this species were found growing in patches, which was the lowest number of any species, not the greatest number. Additionally, even if it were true that this species had the greatest number of plants growing in patches, the finding would be irrelevant to the claim that plants of all five species gained an advantage by growing in close proximity to other plants.
• Choice C is incorrect because 59.1% of the plants of these species were found growing in patches, which is a far greater percentage, not a lower percentage, than what would be expected if plants were randomly distributed (around 15%). Additionally, if it were true that the percentage of plants growing in patches was lower for these species than what would be expected from chance alone, that finding would weaken, not strengthen, the claim that growing in patches is advantageous.

• Choice D is the best answer. By indicating that Taylor’s book was the only Civil War memoir published by a Black woman, this sentence emphasizes the uniqueness, or one-of-a-kind nature, of Taylor’s accomplishment.
• Choice A is incorrect. While the sentence describes some of Taylor’s accomplishments, it doesn’t emphasize the uniqueness of them.
• Choice B is incorrect. While the sentence describes some of Taylor’s accomplishments, it doesn’t emphasize that they were unique.
• Choice C is incorrect. While the sentence provides information about Taylor’s book, it doesn’t emphasize what made the book unique.

• Choice A is the best answer because based on Text 2, it represents how Behrenfeld and colleagues would most likely respond to the “conventional wisdom” discussed in Text 1. The conventional wisdom cited holds the opinion that when there is species diversity within a phytoplankton population, “one species should emerge after outcompeting the rest”—that is, after being so successful in competing for resources that the other species vanish from the population. However, Text 2 explains that according to Behrenfeld and colleagues, phytoplankton are so small and spaced so far apart in the water that there is “much less” direct competition for resources within phytoplankton populations than scientists had previously thought.
• Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 never discusses whether routine replenishment of ocean nutrients affects competition between phytoplankton species.
• Choice C is incorrect because the interspecies competition discussed in both texts is specifically between phytoplankton species, and neither text considers whether phytoplankton compete for resources with larger nonphytoplankton species.
• Choice D is incorrect because according to Text 2, Behrenfeld and colleagues argue that water density decreases, not increases, competition between phytoplankton species.

• Choice C is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would weaken Foster’s hypothesis that damage to eelgrass roots improves the health of eelgrass meadows by boosting genetic diversity. The text indicates that sea otters damage eelgrass roots but that eelgrass meadows near Vancouver Island, where there’s a large otter population, are comparatively healthy. When Foster and her colleagues compared the Vancouver Island eelgrass meadows to those that don’t have established otter populations, the researchers found that the Vancouver Island meadows are more genetically diverse than the other meadows are. This finding led Foster to hypothesize that damage to the eelgrass roots encourages eelgrass reproduction, thereby improving genetic diversity and the health of the meadows. If, however, other meadows not included in the study are less healthy the larger the local otter population is and the longer the otters have been in residence, that would suggest that damage to the eelgrass roots, which would be expected to increase with the size and residential duration of the otter population, isn’t leading meadows to be healthier. Such a finding would therefore weaken Foster’s hypothesis.
• Choice A is incorrect because finding that small, recently introduced otter populations are near other eelgrass meadows in the study wouldn’t weaken Foster’s hypothesis. If otter populations were small and only recently established, they wouldn’t be expected to have caused much damage to eelgrass roots, so even if those eelgrass meadows were less healthy than the Vancouver Island meadows, that wouldn’t undermine Foster’s hypothesis. In fact, it would be consistent with Foster’s hypothesis since it would suggest that the greater damage caused by larger, more established otter populations is associated with healthier meadows.
• Choice B is incorrect because the existence of areas with otters but without eelgrass meadows wouldn’t reveal anything about whether the damage that otters cause to eelgrass roots ultimately benefits eelgrass meadows.
• Choice D is incorrect because the health of plants other than eelgrass would have no bearing on Foster’s hypothesis that damage to eelgrass roots leads to greater genetic diversity and meadow health. It would be possible for otters to have a negative effect on other plants while nevertheless improving the health of eelgrass meadows by damaging eelgrass roots.

• Choice B is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of the art installation Anthem. In this context, “inventive” means characterized by invention and creativity. The text explains that critics’ responses to the installation involved praise for Tsang’s creative transformation of a space into a dynamic exhibit with huge images and lots of sound. This context conveys that the critics found the piece particularly creative.
• Choice A is incorrect because the text indicates that critics praised the installation for being dynamic and including huge images and lots of sound, and it wouldn’t make sense to describe such an exhibit as “restrained,” or limited and not extravagant or showy.
• Choice C is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense to say that critics found the installation “inexplicable,” or incapable of being explained or interpreted, since the critics were able to explain their praise for the installation’s transformation of a space with huge images and lots of sound.
• Choice D is incorrect because the text focuses on the idea that critics praised Tsang for creatively transforming a space into a dynamic exhibit, not that they found the installation “mystifying,” or bewildering and hard to understand. Nothing in the text suggests that the critics couldn’t understand the piece.

• Choice D is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would most directly support the researchers’ hypothesis about the connection between the dusky shark population decline and the eastern oyster population decline. The text indicates that although dusky sharks don’t usually eat eastern oysters, they do consume cownose rays, which are the main predators of eastern oysters. An increase in the abundance of cownose rays in the region in response to a decline in the abundance of dusky sharks would directly support the researchers’ hypothesis: a higher number of cownose rays would consume more eastern oysters, driving down the oyster population.
• Choice A is incorrect because a finding that there’s an association between a decline in the regional abundance of some of dusky sharks’ prey and the regional abundance of dusky sharks wouldn’t directly support the researchers’ hypothesis that a decline in dusky sharks has led to a decline in eastern oysters in the region. Although such a finding might help explain why shark abundance has declined, it would reveal nothing about whether the shark decline is related to the oyster decline.
• Choice B is incorrect because a finding that eastern oyster abundance tends to be greater when dusky sharks and cownose rays are present than when only dusky sharks are present wouldn’t support the researchers’ hypothesis that a decline in dusky sharks has led to a decline in eastern oysters in the region. The text indicates that the sharks prey on the rays, which are the main predators of the oysters; if oyster abundance is found to be greater when rays are present than when rays are absent, that would suggest that rays aren’t keeping oyster abundance down, and thus that a decline in rays’ predators, which would be expected to lead to an increase in the abundance of rays, wouldn’t bring about a decline in oyster abundance as the researchers hypothesize.
• Choice C is incorrect because a finding that consumption of eastern oysters by cownose rays increased substantially before dusky sharks declined in regional abundance wouldn’t support the researchers’ hypothesis that the decline in dusky sharks has led to a decline in eastern oysters in the region. Such a finding would suggest that some factor other than shark abundance led to an increase in rays’ consumption of oysters and thus to a decrease in oyster abundance, thereby weakening the researchers’ hypothesis.

• Choice C is the best answer. The convention being tested is punctuation between a subordinate clause and a main clause. This choice correctly uses a comma to mark the boundary between the subordinate clause (“While…lifelike”) and the main clause (“others look to the past”).
• Choice A is incorrect because it results in an incomplete sentence with no main clause.
• Choice B is incorrect because it fails to mark the boundary between the subordinate clause (“While…lifelike”) and the main clause (“others…past”).
• Choice D is incorrect because it results in an incomplete sentence with no main clause.

• Choice D is the best answer. “In addition” logically signals that the information in this sentence—that the Twentieth Amendment requires newly elected US senators and representatives to be sworn in on January 3 —is separate from and additional to the amendment’s mandate concerning presidential inaugurations.
• Choice A is incorrect because “instead” illogically signals that the information in the sentence presents an alternative to or substitute for the Twentieth Amendment’s mandate concerning presidential inaugurations. Rather, the sentence presents a separate requirement in addition to that one.
• Choice B is incorrect because “for instance” illogically signals that the information in the sentence exemplifies the Twentieth Amendment’s mandate concerning presidential inaugurations. Instead, the sentence presents a separate requirement in addition to that one.
• Choice C is incorrect because “specifically” illogically signals that the sentence provides specific, precise details elaborating on the Twentieth Amendment’s mandate concerning presidential inaugurations. Instead, the sentence presents a separate requirement in addition to that one.

• Choice B is the best answer because it most logically and precisely completes the text’s discussion of studies of altitude’s effect on blood chemistry. In this context, “paucity of” means lack of. In describing the inspiration behind AlSweedan and Alhaj’s research, the text uses the word “though” to suggest a contrasting relationship between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in locations below sea level. This contrasting relationship and the text’s use of the word “many” provide context suggesting that there are few, if any, examples of the second type of study, whereas there are numerous examples of the first type.
• Choice A is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense in context for there to be a “quarrel about,” or open disagreement about, studies of the effect on blood chemistry of living in locations below sea level. The text’s use of the words “though” and “many” suggests a contrasting relationship in terms of amount between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in locations below sea level. There’s nothing in the text to suggest that the contrast between the two types of studies involves the extent to which researchers broadly agree or disagree about the contents of either type.
• Choice C is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense in context for there to be a “profusion of,” or great abundance of, studies of the effect on blood chemistry of living in locations below sea level. The text’s use of the words “though” and “many” suggests a contrasting relationship in terms of amount between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in locations below sea level. Rather than logically completing this contrast, “profusion of” would indicate that the two types of studies are similar in terms of amount, with many examples existing of both types.
• Choice D is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense in context for there to be a “verisimilitude in,” or appearance of truth in, studies of the effect on blood chemistry of living in locations below sea level. The text’s use of the words “though” and “many” suggests a contrasting relationship in terms of amount between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in locations below sea level. There’s nothing in the text to suggest that the contrast between the two types of studies involves the extent to which either type of study presents an appearance of truth.

• Choice D is the best answer. The convention being tested is punctuation between a verb and a preposition. When, as in this case, a verb (“is added”) is immediately followed by a preposition (“whenever”), no punctuation is needed.
• Choice A is incorrect because no punctuation is needed between the verb and the preposition.
• Choice B is incorrect because no punctuation is needed between the verb and the preposition.
• Choice C is incorrect because no punctuation is needed between the verb and the preposition.

The total number of messages sent by Armand is the 5 hours he spent texting multiplied by his rate of texting: m texts/hour × 5 hours = 5m texts. Similarly, the total number of messages sent by Tyrone is the 4 hours he spent texting multiplied by his rate of texting: p texts/hour × 4 hours = 4p texts. The total number of messages sent by Armand and Tyrone is the sum of the total number of messages sent by Armand and the total number of messages sent by Tyrone: 5m + 4p.
Choice A is incorrect and arises from adding the coefficients and multiplying the variables of 5m and 4p. Choice B is incorrect and is the result of multiplying 5m and 4p. The total number of messages sent by Armand and Tyrone should be the sum of 5m and 4p, not the product of these terms. Choice D is incorrect because it multiplies Armand’s number of hours spent texting by Tyrone’s rate of texting, and vice versa. This mix-up results in an expression that does not equal the total number of messages sent by Armand and Tyrone.

Choice C is the correct answer. To eliminate y, the first equation in the system can be multiplied by 2 and then the equations can be added as shown below.

Since the result is 5x = 10, it follows that x = 2.  Substituting 2 for x into the equation x + 2y = −2 gives 2 + 2y = −2 and so y = –2. Therefore, (2, –2) is the solution to the system given.
Alternatively: Use the substitution method to solve the system. For example, the first equation can be rewritten as y = 2x – 6. Substituting 2x – 6 for y in the second equation gives x + 2(2x – 6) = –2, and so x = 2. Finally, substituting 2 for x in y = 2x – 6 gives y = –2, leading to the same solution of the system, namely (2, –2). Choice B is incorrect. The value for x and the value for y have been reversed in the ordered pair. Choices A and D are incorrect. The ordered pair in each of these choices does not satisfy at least one of the equations in the system. For example, the ordered pair (4, 2) does not satisfy the equation x + 2 = –2, since 4 + 2(2) ≠ −2.

To determine which of the given options could be the total number of games the team played, we need to check if 65% of that number results in a whole number, as the team can't win a fraction of a game.

Let's calculate 65% of each option:

1. 9.1 is not a whole number, so 14 cannot be the correct answer.

The only option that results in a whole number when calculating 65% is:

2. 20

Choice B is correct. Looking at the graph, it can be concluded that there is an increase of fewer than 10 students during quarters 4 through 6, quarters 11 through 14, and quarters 13 through 16. There is an increase of more than 20 students during quarters 7 through 10. Therefore, of the four ranges given in the answer choices, the greatest increase in the number of students occurs during quarters 7 through 10.
Choices A, C, and D are incorrect. There is an increase of fewer than 10 students during quarters 4 through 6, quarters 11 through 14, and quarters 13 through 16. There is an increase of more than 20 students during quarters 7 through 10. Therefore, the greatest increase in the number of students does not occur in the ranges given in choices A, C, and D.

Since the brightness of Star A is 156% greater than the brightness of Star B, its brightness is 1.00 + 1.56 = 2.56 times the brightness of Star B. Since the formula indicates that the apparent brightness of a star is inversely proportional to the square of its distance, this implies that the distance is inversely proportional to the square root of its brightness (which is precisely what we see in the answer to question 137). Since the square root of 2.56 is 1.6, Star B is 1.6 times as far from Earth as Star A is.

Multiply by i: K + i = i(1 - i)
Distribute: K + i = i - 2i²
Substitute i² = -1: K + i = i + 2
Subtract i: K = 2

Notice that substituting t = 0 into the function gives us P(0) = 250(2.4)0 = 250(1) = 250. Therefore, the number 250 in the equation means the population of mushrooms on the plot when t = 0.

The simplest polynomial with factors of 12, (x - 5), and (x + 4) is P(x) = 12(x - 5)(x + 4). The completely factored form (including the prime factorization of the coefficient) of this polynomial is P(x) = (2)² (3)(x - 5)(x + 4).
Now, we can look at the factored form of each choice:
(A) 2x² + 8 = 2(x² + 8) (x² + 8 is not factorable over the reals, but it does equal (x - √8i)(x + √8i)
(B) 4x² - 20 = 4(x² - 5) = (2)²(x - √5)(x - √5)
(C) 6x² - 6x - 120 = 6(x² - x - 20) = (2)(3)(x - 5)(x + 4)
(D) x² - 10x + 25 = (x - 5)(x - 5)
Notice that every polynomial in (A), (B), and (D) contains at least one factor that is NOT in the factored form of P(x). (In (D), the factor (x - 5) appears twice, but it appears only once in P(x).) Only choice (C) contains ONLY factors that appear in P(x), so it is the only choice that must be a factor of P(x).

Using the Factor Theorem, we know that if a quadratic has zeroes at x = 1 and x = 5, it must have factors of (x - 1) and (x - 5). Since a quadratic can only have two linear factors, fmust be of the form f(x) = k(x - 1)(x - 5).
Substitute x = 3 and y = -2 for the f(x) = k(x - 1)(x - 5).
Substitute x = 3 and y = -2 for the coordinates of vertex: -2 = k(3 - 1)(3 - 5)
Simplify: -2 = k(2)(-2)
Simplify: -2 = -4k
Divide by -4: 1/2 = k
Therefore the equation of the function is  and we can find its y-intercept by substituting x = 0: 
Simplify: f(0) = 5/2 or 2.5

Since Maria's sales accounted for 25% of the total, her sector must be 0.25(360°) = 90°, which is sector D. This means that Eli ($3,000), Georgia ($5,000), and Zoe ($10,000) account for sectors A, B, and C. Since Georgia's total is between Eli's and Zoe's, her sector is the neither the largest nor the smallest of the remaining sectors. Therefore, it must be sector A, which is in the middle.

The “brute force” method is to write out sequence A until you reach 72, and see which element in sequence B “matches up” to it. But first we must determine the rule for each sequence. A little guessing and checking should confirm that sequence A follows the “add 5” rule, and sequence B follows the “add 10” rule.

A more elegant method, however, is to find the formulas for the nth term of A and the nth term of B. This would be a much more efficient method, also, if it takes a while for 72 to appear in set A. If you recall the general formula for the rath term of an arithmetic sequence (an = ax + (n - 1) d), then it's straightforward to see that the formula for A is an = 2 + (n - 1)5 = 5n - 3 and the formula for B is bn = 5 + (n - 1)10 = 10n - 5. Since we're looking for where the number 72 appears in set A, we can solve 5n - 3 = 72 to find n = 15, then insert this value for n into the formula for B: b15 = 10(15) - 5 = 145.