SAT Word In Context (Hard) - English - Real Collegeboard Questions + Answers + Explanations

Choice C is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of the study of female participation in hunting among prehistoric peoples. In this context, “negligible” means not significant enough to be worth considering. The text says that the study challenged the accepted view of female participation in hunting among prehistoric peoples. The text goes on to say that the researchers found that “in fact, as many as half” the hunters in the groups studied were female. The phrase “in fact” establishes a contrast indicating that the finding that as many as half the hunters were female differs from the accepted view. This context suggests, then, that the accepted view is that female participation in hunting was negligible. Choice A is incorrect because the text indicates that the study challenged the accepted view by showing that as many as half of hunters among prehistoric peoples were female, which suggests that the accepted view is that female participation was low, not that female participation was “inevitable,” or unavoidable. Nothing in the text suggests that the accepted view is that prehistoric peoples could not avoid female participation in hunting. Choice B is incorrect because nothing in the text suggests that the accepted view of female participation in hunting among prehistoric peoples is that such participation was “satisfactory,” or sufficient to meet a requirement or demand. There is no information in the text about any demands or requirements regarding female participation in hunting, let alone any information about how much female participation in hunting would be enough to satisfy those demands or requirements. Instead, the text indicates that the study challenged the accepted view by showing that as many as half the hunters in the groups studied were female, suggesting that the accepted view is that female participation in hunting was low. Choice D is incorrect because the text indicates that the study challenged the accepted view by showing that as many as half of hunters among the prehistoric peoples studied were female, which suggests that the accepted view is that female participation was low, not that female participation was “commonplace,” or ordinary or unremarkable. Although the study under discussion suggests that female participation may have been commonplace, that study is presented as challenging the accepted view, not as reinforcing the accepted view. Assessment SAT Test Reading and Writing Domain Craft and Structure Skill Words in Context Difficulty

Choice B is the best answer. "Exposure to" means "having contact with." It makes sense that Prasad and Bainbridge were investigating whether seeing false versions of images was a cause of false visual memories. Notice how "exposure to incorrect renditions" matches the idea of "familiarity with erroneous versions," which appears later in the sentence. Choice A is incorrect. "Compliance with" means "going along with a command or directive." False versions of images can’t give commands or directives, so this doesn’t apply. Choice C is incorrect. "Criteria" means "standards by which to judge something." It’s not clear how people would come to have standards for the wrong version of an image in the first place, let alone how those standards would cause them to falsely remember the correct version. In other words, this choice would result in a confusing, unclear sentence. Choice D is incorrect. "Forfeiture of" means "a giving up of something." It wouldn’t make sense to say that false memories of an image might be caused by giving up the wrong version of the image.

Choice B is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of Jha and Kremen’s finding about bees’ foraging behavior. In this context, “homogeneous” means uniform or of the same kind. The text indicates that some models predict that the distance that bees travel when they’re foraging declines as the density of flowers increases. The text goes on to say, however, that Jha and Kremen identified a circumstance in which bees don’t behave this way. Specifically, if bees encounter “patches of low species richness”—that is, patches in which the flowers are largely from the same species— they’ll travel beyond those patches to get varied food resources. This context thus suggests that bees don’t behave as some models predict if the dense patches of flowers the bees encounter are homogeneous. Choice A is incorrect because the text indicates that Jha and Kremen found that bees will behave differently than some models predict if the bees encounter flower patches that are not rich in species, not if the flowers are “depleted,” or emptied or reduced in quality or quantity. Although it could be true that bees are likely to leave depleted patches in search of more resources, the text doesn’t indicate that Jha and Kremen investigated that possibility. Choice C is incorrect because there’s no information in the text suggesting that bees will not behave as some models predict if flowers in patches are “immature,” or not fully developed. Instead, the text indicates that Jha and Kremen found that bees will behave contrary to some models’ predictions if the flower patches are not rich in species. Choice D is incorrect because the text indicates that bees’ behavior will be inconsistent with the predictions of some models if the flower patches that the bees encounter are of low species richness, not if the flowers are in patches that are “dispersed,” or widely scattered. Although the text does describe bees as leaving patches that are not rich in species to forage elsewhere, there’s no suggestion that Jha and Kremen found that the distance between dense flower patches affects whether the bees behave as some models predict.

Choice C is the best answer. An "anomaly" is something that deviates from norms or expectations. In this case, the elkhorn coral is an anomaly because it can pass on somatic mutations, whereas most other animals can’t. Choice A is incorrect. A "hypothesis" is "a theory about something," but no theories are provided about elkhorn coral in this text, just facts. Choice B is incorrect. "Affinity" represents "an inclination or liking toward something." As genetic mutations tend to occur without any conscious effort, you can’t really have an inclination toward passing on somatic mutations. Choice D is incorrect. "Corroboration" means "evidence to support or prove something." Because elkhorn coral do the opposite of what most animals do, they do not provide corroboration of the theory that somatic mutations can’t be passed onto offspring. Rather, they show the opposite.

Choice B is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s description of efforts to explain the existence of planets in binary star systems. As used in this context, describing an explanation as “a straightforward” one would mean that the explanation is direct and uncomplicated. The text asserts that since it should be “nearly impossible” for planets to form in binary star systems, it’s “not surprising” that there isn’t a straightforward explanation for the existence of planets in such systems; the fact that one potential approach involves “complex” factors offers further contextual support for this idea. Choice A is incorrect because it would not make sense in context to say that there isn’t “a discernible” explanation—meaning an explanation capable of being perceived—for the existence of planets in binary star systems. The text discusses just such an explanation offered by Roman Rafikov and Kedron Silsbee, which indicates that their explanation can be discerned. Choice C is incorrect because the text emphasizes how difficult it is to explain the existence of planets in binary star systems, suggesting that the situation isn’t marked by the lack of “an inconclusive” explanation—an explanation that does not resolve the issue—but rather that if any explanations have been offered, they’ve likely been inconclusive ones. Choice D is incorrect because nothing in the text suggests that there is a lack of “an unbiased,” or impartial and unprejudiced, explanation for the existence of planets in binary star systems. The text indicates that it’s difficult to explain the existence of planets in such systems and it describes one attempt to do so, but there is no evidence that explanations from Roman Rafikov and Kedron Silsbee or others are biased.

Choice A is the best answer. "Negating" means "reversing" or "making invalid." Proving that Vermeer worked with students would reverse the view of him as a solitary artist. Choice B is incorrect. "Prefiguring" means "being an early indicator of." There already existed views of Vermeer as a solitary painter, so a new painting would not be an early indicator of those views. Rather, a painting proving that Vermeer had a student would contradict those earlier views. Choice C is incorrect. "Entrenching" means "solidifying." A painting proving that Vermeer had a student would not solidify views of him as solitary, but would rather contradict those views. Choice D is incorrect. "Substantiating" means "supporting with proof." A painting proving that Vermeer had a student would not support views of him as solitary, but would rather contradict those views.

Choice C is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of architectural influences among Mesoamerican cities. In this context, “commonalities with” means similarities to or shared attributes with. The text indicates that a recently discovered citadel in Tikal includes a close imitation of a famous temple in Teotihuacán (another Mesoamerican city) and other evidence of Teotihuacán influence, which suggests that the citadel possesses features that resemble architectural features found in Teotihuacán. This context thus indicates that the Tikal citadel shows commonalities with Teotihuacán architecture. Choice A is incorrect because there’s nothing in the text that suggests that the Tikal citadel shows “refinements of,” or improvements on, Teotihuacán architecture. Although the text suggests that the architecture of Teotihuacán influenced the architecture of the Tikal citadel, and although it’s possible that later architectural designs could make improvements on earlier designs, the text doesn’t discuss whether, in imitating Teotihuacán architecture, the Tikal citadel’s builders improved on it. Choice B is incorrect because describing the citadel in Tikal as showing “precursors of” Teotihuacán architecture—or features that preceded and foreshadowed those of Teotihuacán architecture—would imply the opposite of what the text suggests about the relationship between the architecture found in Tikal and Teotihuacán. The text claims that the discovery of similarities between the Tikal citadel and the architecture of Teotihuacán, including a replica of a temple in Teotihuacán, provides evidence of outside influences on Tikal architecture. If the Tikal citadel was influenced by Teotihuacán architecture, then the Teotihuacán architecture must predate the citadel, not the other way around. In this context, therefore, it wouldn’t make sense to say that the Tikal citadel shows precursors of Teotihuacán architecture. Choice D is incorrect because the text discusses how the citadel in Tikal indicates the influence of Teotihuacán architecture, which implies that the makers of the Tikal citadel likely admired aspects of Teotihuacán architecture enough to imitate it. Thus, there’s no reason to think that the Tikal citadel provides evidence of the Tikal people’s “animosities toward,” or feelings of strong dislike or hostility toward, Teotihuacán architecture. Assessment SAT Test Reading and Writing Domain Craft and Structure Skill Words in Context Difficulty

Choice D is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of the sounds made by güiros. In this context, “variable” means able to change. The text begins by explaining that güiros are instruments made out of hollowed gourds with ridges cut into their sides and that players scrape the ridges with wooden sticks to produce sounds. The text goes on to say that güiros’ sounds can change depending on gourd thickness, the distance between ridges, and the types of strokes the player uses, thus supporting the idea that the sounds created by these instruments are variable. Choice A is incorrect because “overlooked” means not being seen or noticed, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that the sounds produced by güiros are overlooked or not noticed. Choice B is incorrect because in this context, “powerful” would mean having a great ability to produce an effect. While it’s possible that the sounds produced by güiros have a strong effect on listeners, the text doesn’t discuss this aspect of their sounds. Choice C is incorrect because “routine” means usual and unvarying, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that the sounds produced by güiros are unvarying. In fact, the text describes how the sounds produced by güiros can differ based on several factors.

Choice C is the best answer because as used in the text, “contracted” most nearly means developed. The text explains that Mr. Brooke has a “too rambling habit of mind,” which the text likens to a disease, saying he is thought to have contracted it. To contract a disease means to acquire or develop a disease. In other words, the text indicates that Mr. Brooke is believed to have acquired, or developed, the habit of mind described in the text. Choice A is incorrect. Although “contracted” can mean limited or restricted in some contexts, here Mr. Brooke is said to draw unpredictable conclusions, suggesting that he exhibits this “too rambling habit of mind,” not that it has been somehow limited or restricted. Choice B is incorrect. Although the text describes Mr. Brooke’s habit of mind, nothing suggests that those are his descriptions or, indeed, that he described his habit of mind at all. Choice D is incorrect because settled means calmed or mitigated, but here Mr. Brooke is said to draw unpredictable conclusions, suggesting that he exhibits this “too rambling habit of mind,” not that it has been somehow calmed or mitigated.

Choice C is the best answer. 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 A is incorrect. This doesn’t fit the logic of the text. If nuisance costs are supplemental to (meaning in addition to) donation size, that wouldn’t result in charities that compensate donors for those costs attracting a few large donors over many small donors. Choice B is incorrect. 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 D is incorrect. 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 B is the best answer. A person who is "dogmatic" believes strongly that their principles and opinions are true. Because Du Bois and Locke are implied to have one "unified vision" of Black American identity that they prioritize over the "diverse perspectives" of different writers, they can be described as dogmatic. Choice A is incorrect. "Proficient" means "skilled." Du Bois and Locke are contrasted with Johnson, but nothing in the text suggests that Johnson was not skilled at making editorial decisions. Based on the text, the three editors just have different styles; they’re not necessarily more or less skilled. Choice C is incorrect. "Ambiguous" means "unclear" or "open to multiple interpretations." However, it’s actually Johnson who encouraged multiple interpretations ("diverse perspectives"). Since Du Bois and Locke are said to "diverge" from Johnson, we can assume that the views they published were not ambiguous, but instead clear and firm (a "unified vision"). Choice D is incorrect. "Unpretentious" means "not trying to impress others with greater skill or importance than is actually possessed." Du Bois and Locke are contrasted with Johnson, but nothing in the text suggests that Johnson is pretentious (trying to impress others).