SAT Critical Reading questions

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

Hi, I’m preparing for the SAT, and while taking some practice tests, I found some questions that I could not understand its explanation.

(the passage for the following question can be found on pg. 7 of this link (or, as the page number goes, on pg. 569):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-SjC2QWxqXRaWZhdVVaX1VrYWc/view )

  1. The author refers to "art-historical knowledge" (lines 39-40) in order to emphasize which point about Picasso's Guernica? (A) Most art historians share Auden's view of art. (B) The original purpose of the painting gradually became obscure. (C) The painting continues to memorialize those who were killed in the bombing of Guernica. (D) Art historians continue to discuss the artistic merits of the painting. (E) The Museum of Modem Art is an appropriate setting for the painting.

I got this question right mostly through conjecture, though I didn’t use the process of elimination so much. I really do not understand why the answer was (B), “the original purpose of the painting gradually became obscure.” It would be great to get some insightful explanation for this question (and other questions on this post as well!).

Another question, for the same passage:

  1. The tone of the description in lines 42-46 ("and it was. . . guests") is one of (A) sorrow (B) admiration (C) indifference (D) sympathy (E) sarcasm

I got this question right through the process of elimination. Although I did not understand why the description could be called “sarcastic,” I looked at other choices and thought that (E) was the best choice. Can someone please explain to me why the description was sarcastic?

Another question, for the same passage:

  1. The author would probably characterize "some" (line 54) as being (A) understandably content to follow a practical course of action (B) relieved that a difficult decision has been made (C) agreeable to a compromise that would weaken the author's argument (D) reluctant to compare the concerns of artists with those of politicians (E) convinced that art has a limited political role

For this question, I had pretty much no idea about how to get the proper answer, which was (E). It would really be helpful if someone could elucidate the reasoning behind the answer.

Another question, for the same passage:

  1. In line 68, the word "neutralization" refers to an act of (A) making objective (B) blending with something that counteracts (C) bringing to destruction (D) rendering ineffective (E) prohibiting conflict

While I was taking the test, I had almost no idea about what the “neutralization” referred to, although I somehow got the answer right, which was (C). Looking back at the text right now, I kinda get why the answer was (C). However, I really am not sure why (C) was chosen over (D). Although I understand at least now that the author has a negative view on Auden’s opinion that art makes nothing happen, I feel like that (D) could have been right also, since Auden’s view was that art was ineffective.

Another question, for the same passage:

  1. The author concludes that "Representing art as something that in its nature can make nothing happen" (lines 68-70) is actually (A) proof that art is subversive (B) an activity that in itself is inconsequential (C) the only valid response to art (D) a reaction to perceptions about art's power (E) an act of defiance in response to political pressures

I got this question right also, which was very surprising to me. I did not have any idea about how to tackle this question. I could not understand the very last sentence of the passage.

Another personal question (sorry for so many "another"s :slight_smile: ) about this passage:

In general, I did alright on this section. I missed three questions. However, as you all well know, anyone who wants to improve his or her SAT score shouldn’t only look at his scores; one has to examine whether the content of the test is fully digested or not. As for this passage, this was very, very, and very, confusing for me. The first paragraph, from line 1 to 53, was quite easy to understand for me, although there were some confusions toward the end of the paragraph. The second paragraph, however, was very confusing for me, and I did not know what the heck the author was talking about or the author’s main point. I still do not get what the author’s main point in this passage is.

Can someone please explain to me in detail about the author’s main point and the author’s intent/what the author is talking about in the second paragraph? It would be really GREAT if a very kind person would spend the time to enrich this amazing college prep website.

I lastly want to thank you for continuously helping me tremendously on SAT Critical Reading sections. Without your insightful explanations for many questions that I posted on this website, I would still have my scores in 600s right now. I especially want to thank marvin100, for your continual responses. Thank you.

Much help will be greatly appreciated; I understand that this post is especially really, really long, so if you don’t or can’t answer all the questions, an explanation for even just one question would be very helpful.

2
  1. "in later years it required art-historical knowledge to know what was going on" I think the key words here are "in later years" and "to know what was going on." You need a specific type of knowledge now to know what was obvious back then? Sounds like it's become obscure over time.
  2. "So in the end it did about as much for the devastated townspeople as Auden's verses did for the people and causes he wrote about, making nothing relevant happen" This phrase, directly after the lines to which the question directs you, sounds sarcastic to me. "It did absolutely nothing," in effect. It's kind of making fun of the painting / Auden.
  3. "Fine, some would say." This is directly linked to the previous passage, about the painting doing nothing. These "some" would say that it's fine for a painting to have no relevant effects, but the author thinks "the sole political role of poetry" isn't "this deflected, consolatory, ceremonial" stuff. I'd assume, then, that the "some" the author speaks of so derisively would hold opinions opposite to the author's--that they think art doesn't / shouldn't have much political impact, so it's "fine" that it "makes nothing relevant happen."
3
  1. I agree with you that D also makes sense. I would personally have chosen D. However, I guess you're supposed to take the question from the author's (strongly worded / biased) point of view, where it makes sense that the neutralization of art, which the author vehemently opposes, would be considered as ruinous (instead of merely ineffective).
  2. "Representing art as something that in its nature can make nothing happen is not so much a view opposed to the view that art is dangerous as it is a way of responding to the sensed danger of art by treating art as though it were nothing to be afraid of." In other words, if you "neutralize" art by saying it has no impact, you're not saying art isn't dangerous; the author thinks you're lying. The author says that if you say art does nothing, you're denying the power you know it has. Like, if you're a political leader and you know there's a huge protest going on in your city/state/whatever, but you say nothing is happening anyway, you're attempting to de-fang the threat. You're denying its existence, like if you ignore it it'll go away. The answer that restates the author's opinion on this--that you feel art's power, and you're reacting to it by trying to ignore it--is D.
4

I think @bodangles gave a pretty good explanation of this one.

The author is mocking the use of such a powerful political painting for merely decorative reasons. But POE is enough to get the answer, as you did yourself.

The “some” in line 54 would think that “the extreme limitation” of art’s “powers to make anything happen” (52-53) is “fine.” That means they accept the idea that art has a limited political role.

The answer is in fact (D)–the author says nothing about “destruction” of art; rather, he writes that believing art “can make nothing happen” is “treating art as thought it were nothing to be afraid of” (72-73)–in other words, making it ineffective.

“a way of responding to the sensed danger of art” = a reaction against the perception that art is dangerous. Near-perfect paraphrase of (D).

The passage is about Auden’s claim that art can’t make change in the real world. The author ends up by saying that (A) it’s not true and (B) to claim it is true is actually to attempt to make art less dangerous; that is, to convince people that art isn’t and can’t be dangerous.

It’s a difficult passage, conceptually, and I don’t think you’re likely to see a passage quite this knotty in a contemporary exam. But I’d also argue that your assumption that one must “fully digest” the content of a passage isn’t quite true; often when a passage is particularly difficult the questions don’t actually require a thorough understanding of the passage!

You’re welcome.