Test: Command of Evidence: Textual - 1 - SAT MCQ

First we need to focus in on the claim our evidence needs to support:

"the narrator describes Mr. Cornelius Johnson's appearance as conveying his exaggerated sense of his importance"

We can simplify this claim to make our lives a bit easier:

exaggerated self-importance

Let's test this phrase against each of the choices:

Choice B shows that Cornelius Johnson is tidy and well-dressed, but it doesn't suggest that he is arrogant, or that he exaggerates his self-importance. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice D focuses more on the setting than on Cornelius. We can eliminate this choice.

Now choices A and C are a bit trickier. C even includes the word "important". But remember to be strict: we don't want a choice that simply says Cornelius acted important, we need evidence of exaggerated self-importance.

Choice C is a pretty literal description of Cornelius, telling us what his voice sounds like. Also, the prompt focuses on Cornelius' appearance—what he looks like, not what he sounds like. Choice A introduces a comical and hyperbolic description of Cornelius walking around like a big shot.

Choice A is definitely more "exaggerated". Choice A is the answer.

Choice A. This is the best choice. The example of Tobar approaching his subject "like a reporter", including conducting "interviews" and "research", shows Tobar applying journalism techniques to his fiction-writing.

Choice B. This choice doesn't support the claim. It tells us about Tobar's initial career as a journalist, but it doesn't say anything about him "applying journalism techniques" to his fiction-writing.

Choice C. This choice doesn't support the claim. It tells us that Tobar applied fiction techniques to his nonfiction writing, but we're looking for evidence of the other way around: that Tobar applied journalism techniques to his fiction-writing.

Choice D. This choice doesn't support the claim. It tells us that a character in one of Tobar's novels applied a journalism technique to his fiction-writing, but it doesn't tell us that Tobar did that himself.

Choice A. This quotation doesn't show that Electra believes her grief is justified. It shows that Electra is aware of its intensity, but it doesn't suggest that she believes she has a legitimate reason for feeling that way.

Choice B. This is the best choice. Electra states that she "knows her own passion", which shows that she's aware of the intensity of her grief. But she also claims that the "causes are so dire"—meaning the reasons for her grief are so awful—that she can't let it go, which shows that she believes her grief is justified.

Choice C. This quotation doesn't show that Electra believes her grief is justified. It shows that Electra is aware of its intensity, but it doesn't suggest that she believes she has a legitimate reason for feeling that way.

Choice D. This quotation doesn't show that Electra believes her grief is justified. It shows that Electra is aware of the intensity of her grief, but it doesn't suggest that she has a legitimate reason for feeling that way.

Choice A. This is the best choice. The text says that LINE transposons are important in the human hippocampus, which supports complex cognition. If the LINE transposon found in octopuses is active in a similar part of their brain, that would suggest that LINE transposons support complex cognition in octopuses too, which in turn supports the hypothesis that LINE transposons are linked to advanced cognition in general.

Choice B. This choice doesn't support the hypothesis. It doesn't include anything about how LINE transposons function in species other than humans.

Choice C. This choice doesn't support the hypothesis. It doesn't include anything about how the LINE transposon in octopuses might support advanced cognition.

Choice D. This choice doesn't support the hypothesis. It doesn't include anything about how the LINE transposon in octopuses might support advanced cognition.

Choice A. This choice doesn't illustrate the claim. While this quotation does focus on the rock, it suggests that the rock fears the sea. It lacks the sense of boldness and strength implied by the phrase "confront and restrain the sea".

Choice B. This choice doesn't illustrate the claim. This quotation focuses on the sea, not the rock.

Choice C. This choice doesn't illustrate the claim. This quotation focuses on the sea, not the rock.

Choice D. This is the best choice. This quotation focuses on the rock, which yells at the sea and announces its intent to "limit [the sea's] power". This matches the idea of confrontation and restraint in the claim we're trying to support.

Choice A. This finding wouldn't support the conclusion. The conclusion is about the influx of sediment being "spatially diffuse", meaning spread out over a large area. The type of sediment wouldn't have an impact on the conclusions.

Choice B. This finding wouldn't support the conclusion. Any sediment that enters downstream of the sampling sites wouldn't end up in the samples, so it wouldn't affect the findings or the conclusion.

Choice C. This finding wouldn't support the conclusion. It doesn't say anything about the influx of sediment being "spatially diffuse" (spread out).

Choice D. This finding would support the conclusion! If stream banks are collapsing into the water at multiple points, then sediment is getting into the water at those various points. This supports the conclusion that the inflow of sediment is very spread out.

First we need to focus in on the hypothesis our evidence needs to support:

"the sail-like structure running down the back of the dinosaur Spinosaurus aegyptiacus improved the animal's success in underwater pursuits of prey species capable of making quick, evasive movements"

We can simplify this hypothesis to make our lives a bit easier:

Sail on back = quicker movements

Which choice strengthens this idea?

Choice A does focus on speed of movement, but finds that a sail on the back = slower movement. This is the opposite of what we want to support. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice B focuses on water displacement, not the speed of movement. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice C focuses on the "power" needed to move, not the speed of movement. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice D focuses on speed of movement, and finds that having a sail made sharp turns take "significantly less time". In other words: sail on back = quicker movements. This supports the hypothesis made by the scientists. Choice D is the answer.

Choice A. This is the best choice. Enrollment and attendance are logical ways to measure whether students are interested and engaged. High enrollment and attendance suggests a high level of interest and engagement.

Choice B. This choice doesn't support the claim. This tells us about teacher enjoyment, which isn't relevant to a claim about student interest and engagement.

Choice C. This choice doesn't support the claim. Students' preferences between hip-hop and rap aren't relevant to the claim, which is focused on whether or not students like classes that use hip-hop pedagogy (which includes the educational use of both hip-hop and rap).

Choice D. This choice doesn't support the claim. While the first part of the sentence discusses social justice, the underlined claim focuses on student success, which is unrelated.

Choice A. This choice doesn't weaken the underlined claim. If anything, it might actually strengthen the claim: assuming we can make an inference about Neanderthals using a fact about early humans, it provides more support for the idea that the person who made the notches was counting something.

Choice B. This choice doesn't weaken the underlined claim. The fact that another artifact had parallel notches made with a different stone tool doesn't tell us anything about the use of either artifact. For all we know, they could both have been used for counting!

Choice C. This choice doesn't weaken the underlined claim. The fact that it took effort to make the lines doesn't tell us anything about what the lines were for.

Choice D. This is the best choice. The archeologist bases their claim on the fact that the hyena bone features unevenly spaced parallel notches. But if unevenly spaced parallel lines were found on "decorative art" at another Neanderthal site, it would suggest that the hyena bone is probably decorative art as well — not a counting tool.

Choice A. This wouldn't weaken the explanation. If anything, it actually supports it: it demonstrates that recipients of electronic money and recipients of physical money have different spending habits.

Choice B. This would have no impact on the explanation. It doesn't tell us anything about possible differences between the spending habits of those who spend physical money and those who spend money electronically.

Choice C. This wouldn't weaken the explanation. The explanation we're testing this choice against is about the way that people might "conceive of and allocate" physical and electronic funds differently. This choice only focuses on the timing, not what they spend the money on.

Choice D. This would weaken the explanation. If the recipients of electronic money immediately withdrew it all as physical money, then both kinds of recipients ended up spending physical money on food. So there must be some other explanation why those who initially received electronic money ate different kinds of food.