Inference Test- 1 - SAT MCQ

We should start by paraphrasing the information provided in the passage:

Cold temperatures are costly for organisms to survive in.

Few species have evolved to survive cold weather.

The temperature is colder at higher elevation.

Fewer species live at the top of a mountain than at the base of the mountain.

In order to logically complete the text, we need to connect the dots between these ideas. Which choice does that?

Choice A has a different focus than the provided information. It focuses on the number of environments instead of the number of species. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice C has a different focus than the provided information. It focuses on rocky environments instead of high elevations or cold temperatures. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice D doesn't explain the claim we want to focus on. Instead, it makes a new claim about elevation and species diversity. We can eliminate this choice.

Only choice B connects all the ideas provided in the passage. It uses the first few bullets we identified to explain the final bullet:

Few species can survive cold weather.

Weather is cold at high elevation.

So...

Few species can survive at high elevation.

Choice B is the answer.

We should start by paraphrasing the information provided in the passage:

Companies try to associate their products with unique attributes.

However, consumers view competing brands as largely similar.

Differences in consumer opinion of competing brands can be explained by brand popularity.

In order to logically complete the text, we need to connect the dots between these ideas. Let's think through the argument that's being made:

Companies try to make their products seem different

BUT, consumers don't see products as different

This argument is presenting a discrepancy. The companies are trying to pursue a marketing strategy, but it's not working. Consumers just pay attention to the popularity of a product.

The conclusion of this argument is becoming clear: companies are wasting their time on brand differentiation.

Do any of the choices match that conclusion?

Choice (C) matches our prediction and is the answer.

Choice A. This is the best choice. The text tells us that because of the copyright, adapting Sherlock Holmes stories used to be expensive and difficult. This suggests that after the copyright ends, it will be less expensive and less difficult to adapt these stories.

Choice B. This inference isn't supported. The text never discusses people's interest in detective stories, so there is no basis to make this inference.

Choice C. This inference isn't supported. The text never suggests that copyright fees from the past are returned after a copyright ends, so there is no basis to make this inference.

Choice D. This inference isn't supported. The text never suggests that the copyright ending will make Sherlock Holmes stories harder to find. Instead, it suggests that adaptations of these stories will be easier and less expensive to make.

Choice A. This inference isn't supported. The text tells us that "Oxford University's Bodleian Library acquired the collection", but it never suggests that it was a challenge to do so.

Choice B. This is the best choice. Johnson collected "ephemera", or things that are meant to be thrown away. Scholars thought his collection was worthless to them, then later realized that it was potentially valuable. This suggests that scholars went from disregarding ephemera to recognizing their usefulness.

Choice C. This inference isn't supported. The text actually suggests the opposite: the example of Johnson's collection lends support to arguments that ephemera does hold value for scholars.

Choice D. This inference isn't supported. The text tells us that the Bodleian Library acquired Johnson's large collection of ephemera back in 1968, so we can assume that contemporary historians conducting research there do have access to that collection.

We should start by paraphrasing the information provided in the passage:

All animals sleep, and sleep has known benefits

However, deep sleep for hours at a time leaves animals vulnerable

Some scientists think the danger of this vulnerability outweighs the known benefits of sleep

In order to logically complete the text, we need to connect the dots between these ideas. Let's think through the argument that's being made:

All animals sleep, so sleep must be beneficial, or animals wouldn't have evolved that way.

The known dangers of prolonged sleep outweigh the known benefits.

This argument is presenting a discrepancy. From what we know, animals shouldn't have evolved to sleep for hours at a time, but they did evolve that way.

The conclusion of this argument is becoming clear: there must be something good about deep sleep that we don't know.

Do any of the choices match that conclusion?

Choice (B) matches our prediction and is the answer.