SAT Questions and Answers Model Paper-7 Important Questions Section H

Doorsteptutor material for SAT is prepared by world's top subject experts: get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of SAT.


Time – 20 minutes

20 Questions

1. Because Isaac found the language of advertising both … and insulting, he … watching commercials on television.

(A) Offensive. . Avoided

(B) Amusing. . Hated

(C) Irritating. . Tolerated

(D) Inviting. . Enjoyed

(E) Complicated. . Discussed

2. In the red Namibian desert of Demarala, about 100 black rhinos still manage to … even though the terrain is extraordinarily …

(A) Congregate. . spacious

(B) Explore. . Level

(C) Flourish. . Abundant

(D) Thrive. . Hostile

(E) Migrate. . Safe

3. The term “dry cleaning” is something of a … , since this process generally involves application of perchloroethylene, a liquid chemical.

(A) Stereotype

(B) Memento

(C) Proverb

(D) Misnomer

(E) Speculation

4. For thousands of years, nomads, conquerors, traders, and pilgrims have … the region, contributing to its multicultural heritage and its … of artifacts.

(A) Examined. . Dearth

(B) Circumvented. . Selection

(C) Canvassed. . Paucity

(D) Traversed. . Wealth

(E) Studied. . Uniformity

5. Displaying a heightened sense of … , many of author Maria Cristina Mena՚s characters exemplify a dignified and polite society.

(A) Eminence

(B) Decorum

(C) Ebullience

(D) Realism

(E) Dissipation

6. Dr. Yuan headed a medical team that was highly … , in that it represented multifarious specialties and varied experiences.

(A) Refractory

(B) Assiduous

(C) Eclectic

(D) Remunerative

(E) Cohesive

Questions 7 – 20 are based on the following passage.

This passage is adapted from a 2004 book about prominent film critic Pauline Kael, written by an editor and critic who knew her personally.

Questions 7 – 20 Are Based on the Following Passage
Line No.Passage
5Kael didn՚t have to convince most of her readers that films mattered, but she succeeded better than anyone else in articulating why, and she was able to do so without either condescending to the medium or granting the industry any more respect than she thought it deserved.
10From her first review to her last, a span of nearly four decades, she was remarkably consistent; her prose got more intricate, but her approach never changed. She was as sensitive to fraud as some people are to pollen, and this aversion was probably what made her such a natural
15As a critic. That movies are vast meadows of fraud didn՚t faze her (though it often depressed her) . Her genius was for separating out what was fake from what was true, zeroing in on the parts of a movie – a performance, a theme, a look, a line – that you could respond to without
20Being had. It was even OK to respond to fraud if you knew what you were responding to, because certain kinds of fraud appeal to something in our natures that isn՚t fraudulent. ″ Whom could it offend? ″ she asked of the movie The Sound of Music. ⚹ ″ Only those of us who,
25despite the fact that we may respond, loathe being manipulated in this way and are aware of how self – indulgent and cheap and ready – made are the responses we are made to feel. ″ Kael understood reasons smart people love movies even when movies aren՚t smart.
30Kael made much out of the progress in her writing from the semiformality of her early essays to the unbuttoned exuberance of her late ones. But I think it mattered more to her than it did to her readers, for whom the early writings were already a jolt. The voice was there. That
35Voice became instrumental in reshaping the American critical language, stripping it down and making it colloquial. But between, say, the rich bombast of H. L. Mencken and the late Kael՚s fanciful slang, there were significant way stations, such as Dwight Macdonald and
40James Agee, both of whom Kael admired. These wires were consciously direct and informal; so was she, but by the end of her career she was so bent on bringing the fizz of the American vernacular into literary usage that her slang took on a richness of its own. She said she wanted
45To talk about movies the way people talk about them leaving the theater, and her prose does seem to replicate the human voice. But this speaking voice is a carefully crafted illusion – ″ pure literary artifice. Carefully, painstakingly constructed, masquerading as ordinary
50speech, ″ as John Bennet, her last editor at The New Yorker, recalled in a talk after her death. ″ No one has ever talked the way Pauline writes, ″ he said.

A label that turns up regularly in articles about Kael – often by detractors, who feel they have to grant her

55something before they start hacking away – is stylist. She was, indeed, a major stylist, and she was already one in her first published essays. But the word suggests that the splendor of her writing was a bonus that came packaged with her criticism. No: her writing is her criticism. In her
60Case, style is substance. A critic՚s words convey her ideas, but her style – her craft – carries the authority of her personality, from which her tastes grow. An anecdote: one summer day not too many years ago, I was on Kael՚s verandah, staring off vacantly, and seeing me through the
65Screen door, she called, “what are you doing?” “Thinking,” I told her. (I wasn՚t.) She said, “I only think with a pencil in my hand.” It was just a small joke, but it got at something. You sit down to review a work you՚re not sure about your response to, and by the time you get
70Up from your desk, you know what you think. It isn՚t a matter of taking a stand and then coming up with an argument to defend it; the argument is more organic than that. As you connect your thoughts – as you try make them coherent by the simple method of fixing your
75Sentences, making the words flow, correcting imprecisions – an argument emerges. There may be beautifully vacant writing, but I can՚t cite any beautifully vacant criticism. What I can cite is a lot of bad critical prose that thinks it can get away with its mediocrity by
80Virtue of the (ostensibly) excellent quality of the thought behind it. “I don՚t play accurately – anyone can play accurately – but I play with wonderful expression,” the playwright Oscar Wilde has a character say as he rises from the piano. Perceptions that aren՚t backed up by
Creditable prose are generally worthless, because writing isn՚t just a conduit for thinking. Writing is thinking.

⚹ Popular 1965 film about a family musical troupe narrowly escaping harm on the eve of the Second World War

7. In lines 1 – 8 ( “Kael … changed” ) , the author՚s attitude toward Kael՚s work is one of

(A) Skepticism

(B) Uncertainty

(C) Indifference

(D) Admiration

(E) Envy

8. In line 12, “genius” most nearly means

(A) Prevailing character

(B) Exceptional talent

(C) Guardian spirit

(D) Influence

(E) Prodigy

9. In line 13, “true” most nearly means

(A) Stcadfast

(B) Typical

(C) Genuine

(D) Rightful

(E) Necessary

10. Which is the best interpretation of Kael՚s answer to the question posed in line 19 ( “Whom … offend” ) ?

(A) Virtually no one

(B) No one but Kael herself

(C) Discerning filmgoers

(D) Those who dislike musical films

(E) Those who dislike historical films

11. The author mentions Dwight Macdonald and James Agee in line 35 to make the point that

(A) Kael՚s exuberant voice has long been a staple of American writing

(B) Kael՚s supposed innovations can all be traced to other authors

(C) Kael was inspired to became a film critic because of her admiration for other critics

(D) Kael was not unique among American critics in preferring a less ornate style

(E) Kael was part of a group of writers who admired and supported each other

12. Which best describes Kael՚s view of “the fizz” (line 38) ?

(A) It is lively and compelling

(B) It was previously more vibrant than it is now.

(C) It is very American in its strict formality.

(D) It was adopted by too many film critics.

(E) It is loud and abrasive.

13. The passage indicates that, for Kael, talking about movies “the way people talk about them leaving the theater” (lines 40 – 41) involved the use of

(A) Colloquial expressions

(B) Technical vocabulary

(C) Outdated phrases

(D) Allusions to other films

(E) Lengthy quotes from filmgoers

14. The final paragraph (lines 48 – 81) is primarily concerned with

(A) The many way to approach a writing project

(B) The relationship between style and substance

(C) The process of editing one՚s own writing

(D) What constitutes bad criticism?

(E) Kael՚s response to her critics

15. In line 50, “hacking away” most nearly means

(A) Pruning injudiciously

(B) Coughing uncontrollably

(C) Criticizing vigorously

(D) Managing successfully

(E) Editing effectively

16. In context, lines 57 – 62 ( “An anecdote … something” ) principally serve to

(A) Point out the sources of humor in Kael՚s writing

(B) Offer a gentle critique of Kael՚s film criticism

(C) Reveal something about the author՚s character

(D) Call attention to the author՚s relationship with Kael

(E) Introduce the author՚s reflections on the nature of writing

17. The author՚s main point in lines 63 – 70 ( “you sit … emerges” ) is that

(A) Opinions come into focus as you try to express them

(B) Coherent thoughts are much more important than prose style

(C) You must know where you stand before you can convince others

(D) An organic argument about a film need not be based on personal experience

(E) Even the most talented writers occasionally need to revise their work

18. The kind of piano playing favored by the character in Wilde՚s play (lines 75 – 77) would be most similar to

(A) An artfully written biography containing factual errors

(B) A dazzling poem written by one of the characters in a novel

(C) A harshly critical but insightful review of a new movie

(D) A dance performed with technical brilliance but no visible emotion

(E) A painting that accurately portrays a scene from history

19. Which best describes the author՚s tone in lines 78 – 81 ( “Perceptions … is thinking” ) ?

(A) Triumphant

(B) Resolute

(C) Snide

(D) Conciliatory

(E) Ambivalent

20. The author suggests which of the following about Kael՚s work as a film critic?

(A) It declined over time.

(B) It is overestimated.

(C) It has not been objectively evaluated.

(D) It is only now fully appreciated.

(E) It has been a source of some disagreement.