Words in Context Test- 2 - SAT MCQ

Choice A. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. Nothing in the text indicates that Alemán's artworks are "unknown".

Choice B. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. "Reserved" can either mean "slow to reveal emotions" or "booked". But the clues suggest that Alemán's artworks are boldly colorful—almost the opposite of "reserved"!

Choice C. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. "Definite" means "certain" or "decided". It wouldn't make sense to describe artwork as "definite".

Choice D. This is the best choice. "Vivid" can mean "colorful" or "bright-colored". This definition fits the context clues about Alemán's fascination with and passion for bold colors.

Choice A. This choice is too positive to fit the context. The first sentence tells us that video meetings are "less conducive to" (meaning less good for) brainstorming. This suggests that the video meeting participants' focus is bad for their creativity.

Choice B. This choice doesn't make sense. The participants' intense focus on the screen is the subject of the missing verb. It wouldn't make sense to say that their over-focusing "criticizes" their creativity.

Choice C. Construct means "build" or "make", which is too positive to fit the context. The first sentence tells us that video meetings are "less conducive to" (meaning less good for) brainstorming. This suggests that the video meeting participants' focus is bad for their creativity.

Choice D. This is the best choice. The first sentence tells us that video meetings are "less conducive to" (meaning less good for) brainstorming. This suggests that the video meeting participants' focus is bad for their creativity. "Impede" means "delay" or "prevent", which works perfectly in this context.

Choice A. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. The next sentence tells us that critics focus on art that is mysterious and challenging. If Hannock's paintings are "innovative" (meaning advanced and original), then critics probably would comment on them.

Choice B. This is the best choice. When talking about a thing, "accessible" means "easy to understand". This sets up the contrast in the next sentence, which tells us that critics mostly focus on art that is "cryptic or challenging" (meaning not easy to understand).

Choice C. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. The next sentence tells us that critics focus on art that is mysterious and challenging. If Hannock's paintings are "profound" (meaning very deep and insightful), then critics probably would comment on them.

Choice D. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. The next sentence tells us that critics focus on art that is mysterious and challenging. If Hannock's paintings are "subversive" (meaning disruptive and revolutionary), then critics probably would comment on them.

Choice A. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. Traffic signals didn't avoid only red and green lights, they had only red and green lights (until 1923).

Choice B. This is the best choice. "Featured" means "had as a prominent attribute or aspect", which appropriately expresses how traffic signals only had red and green lights until 1923.

Choice C. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. Traffic signals don't have feelings, so it wouldn't make sense to say that they appreciate only red and green lights.

Choice D. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. "Disregarded" means "ignored", something only living things can do. So it wouldn't make sense to say that traffic signals disregarded only red and green lights.

Choice A. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. If nuisance costs can predict donation size, that wouldn't necessarily result in charities that compensate donors for those costs attracting a few large donors over many small donors.

Choice B. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. If nuisance costs are subsumed in (meaning included in) donation size, that wouldn't result in charities that compensate donors for those costs attracting a few large donors over many small donors.

Choice C. This is the best choice. We're told that charities that pay donors back for nuisance costs will attract a few large donors instead of many small donors. This suggests that nuisance costs are not linked to donation size.

Choice D. This doesn't fit the logic of the text. If nuisance costs are supplemental to (meaning in addition to) to donation size, that wouldn't result in charities that compensate donors for those costs attracting a few large donors over many small donors.