<p>Page 71, Question 21: It talks about a planetarium experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In lines 40-43 (“Moonless . . . Sun”), the narrator’s
comment about the “arrangement” demonstrates
a preference for
(A) irony
(B) inventiveness
(C) symmetry
(D) ornamentation
(E) ambiguity</p>
<p>I got D, because it says that it was NOT AS SATISFYING as what people used to think it was. Can someone please explain the answer they got? I want to see if you guys can figure it out–or you could just go to the answer key on the pdf.</p>
<p>Page 78, question 10: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The italics in line 25 most directly emphasize
(A) a misguided idea that is becoming obsolete
(B) a negative view that scientists adopt toward lay
people
(C) a common criticism of dog owners
(D) the controversial nature of an alternative theory
(E) the intensity of a conviction based on sentiment</p>
<p>How can C be disproved? </p>
<p>Question 15, page 79: (Find the passage in the pdf; the formatting is too weird)</p>
<p>Both the author of Passage 1 and the “experts”
mentioned in line 53 of Passage 2 directly support the
idea that
(A) writers of dog stories intentionally distort
the truth for dramatic purposes
(B) comparing the intelligence of dogs to that
of chimps is a pointless enterprise
(C) many people have an excessive emotional
attachment to their dogs
(D) dogs are less intelligent than many people
believe
(E) few people are familiar with learning theory
as it applies to dogs</p>
<p>Can’t B be correct? Isn’t it pointless because chimps are so obviously more intelligent than dogs are?</p>
<p>Well, I’m lazy so I’m just gonna answer the one about Darwin and dogs.
What do you mean how to do you disprove C? C isn’t really relevant to the passage (no one is criticizing dog owners). The italics is instead emphasizing the fact that dog owners believe dogs are really smart because they’re so emotionally tied to them. Thus, E.</p>
<p>Okay, nevermind, let’s try and answer the first one regarding the planetarium experience.</p>
<p>For this question, none of the answer choices really popped out at me as the correct one at first glance. Time for POE.</p>
<p>We can definitely remove A, B, and E, as none of them are really pertinent to the arrangement oddity. That leaves C and D. Even D, as I think about it, doesn’t really apply here either. That leaves C. C makes the most sense because the author uses the word ‘odd.’ What’s odd? It’s odd that Mercury rotates three times yet only circles the Sun twice. The author felt it was more satisfying to have Mercury rotate once for every orbit. This shows the author predilection for symmetry.</p>
<p>Haha, now that I’m here, I guess I’ll answer the last one as well.</p>
<p>Okay, so it is pretty evident that the ‘experts’ and the author of Passage 1 don’t have much in common. The views presented by the ‘experts’ and the author are also antithesis to each other. So we have to find some common ground between the two to answer the question.
B doesn’t really work because neither group really says comparing the two animals is pointless. The question explicitly uses the words “directly support.” The best answer is D. The entire first passage is based on this notion. The ‘experts’ also claim ‘anthropomorphizing’ dogs is a ‘sin,’ because they are not as smart as humans. They don’t think. If you know any dog owners, you will agree that these people talk to their dogs, try to teach them tricks, assume they know how to reason, etc. etc. Only this idea that dogs are not as smart as people believe they are is the idea directly supported by both the author of Passage 1 and the ‘experts.’ (D)</p>