MCAT 5 e Cars 1 Homework

Kaplan MCAT Prep
CARS 1 Lesson Book Extra Practice Answers & Explanations
Answer Choices Note: This document uses the abbreviations Opp (Opposite), OS (Out
of Scope), FUD (Faulty Use of Detail), and Dist (Distortion) to refer to the various "wrong
answer pathologies." These pathologies will be defined in-depth in CARS 2; for now, just
take note if you find yourself falling for some wrong answer pathologies more than others,
and keep that pattern in mind as you continue your CARS study.
Passage 1 (Questions 1-7) (pages 374-375)
Sample Passage Outline
P1. Ang ≠ good & Dev ≠ bad ---> more complicated
P2. Ang ≈ meaning, Dev ≈ loss of mean; need both in = amounts
P3. Loss of mean = laugh, initially. So laugh = Dev
P4. Ang laugh = restore mean, opp of Dev’s
P5. Ang & Dev laugh @ one another
P6. 2 laughs opp but called same word
Goal: To demonstrate 2 different meanings of laughter through the Ang/Dev story
Answer Key
1. A
2. C
3. D
4. A
5. B
6. C
7. A
Explanations
Question 1: A
Question Type: Function
This is definitely a function question since the word ”function” appears in the stem. We have a
specific reference so that’s the first place to go back to. Reworded, the question is asking why
the author included P3. The outline definitely helps here, and even gives us the answer, if we
labeled it well. But even if we have to go back to the passage, it’s easy to see that the majority
of the entire paragraph is dedicated to discussing the genesis and qualities of the Devil’s
laughter. The Devil being cast to Earth is mentioned, but only insomuch as to give context back
to laughter.
Execute (Predict): The function is to describe the Devil’s laughter.
(A): This fits perfectly!
(B): OS. Conventional and common knowledge that can be related to the topic of a CARS
passage is commonly featured in the wrong answers to distract students who bring in outside
information without even realizing it. The “justice” of the Devil’s punishment is not a concern, or
mentioned, in any way, anywhere in the passage.
(C): Dist./FUD. Even though the ambiguity of laughter is a major theme of the passage, that
ambiguity isn’t brought up until P5. Paragraph 3, which this question is asking about, is too
early.
(D): FUD. It’s from the passage and even from the correct paragraph, but it’s not the reason why
the author wrote P3. It is just an ancillary point, to provide more context for the author’s idea.
Question 2: C
Question Type: Main Idea
Seeing the phrase “...main idea” in the question stem signals a main idea question which means
our outline goal will help.
Execute (Predict): The correct answer will say something like “demonstrate that there are
different meanings of laughter.”
(A): FUD. This is a true statement from the passage but doesn’t answer the question. The
author did not write the passage for the purpose of informing us of who learned to laugh first.
(B): OS. Even though the two separate purposes of laughter are discussed in the passage,
neither is defined as the “true” purpose. Additionally, the concept that “most people
misunderstand” laughter isn’t anywhere in the passage.
(C): This is the main idea and confirms the author’s emphasis in P6, which ties together the rest
of the passage.
(D): OS. Human laughter, strictly speaking, was never truly discussed in the passage. That
alone is enough for us to disqualify this as OS. There was no mention of any laughter, human or
otherwise, that fell between the Devil’s and Angel’s laughter.
Question 3: D
The phrasing of this question should stand out, as it’s almost a “main idea” but for only a certain
part of the passage. Be flexible! The outline will help us get this one quickly. The author opens
the passage by providing his own view of the Devil (not evil, but anti-rational) and Angels (not
good, but divine creation) and then goes onto say that for “the good of the world” we need
balance between both and not just one or the other. Simple: he’s just sort of defining those
figures, what they are and are not.
The operative phrase is “predominantly concerned with”. This helps to pick the correct answer
and avoid the primary distractor. Even though we DO NOT and WILL NEVER need
outside-of-the- passage information, it’s interesting to note that the author’s view of these
figures is, at a minimum, different from the common convention of Angels as good and Devils as
bad. So it’s almost as if he starts off by dispelling what your opinion may be on the figures he’s
going to discuss, and asserts his own view. This ends up being very close to the answer.
Execution (Predict): The answer will say something like “Discussing the roles of Angels &
Demons, and that equilibrium between them is important.”
UD. This should be easy to eliminate. In P2 the author states “...the good of the world
(A): F
does not require [angels] to gain precedence over [demons] (as I thought when I was young).”
The comment about the author’s youth is just an aside, with no real significance other than to
provide a bit of extra context with no substance. Certainly, it is not the reason for the first 2
paragraphs.
(B): Opp. The author states “...the good of the world does not require [angels] to gain
precedence over [demons] (as I thought when I was young).” in P2. So the author is in direct
opposition to this choice.
(C): Dist./FUD. This is the prime distractor. Equilibrium is talked about but “finding” it isn’t, so it’s
somewhat of a Distortion. Also, laughter isn’t even introduced until P3, so it couldn’t be the
primary concern of the previous 2 paragraphs.
(D): This is very much what the author was predominantly concerned, with as evidenced in the
passage itself and our outline.
Question 4: A
Question Type: Inference
The word “implies” in the question stem informs us that this is an inference question. The
question is basically asking us to find the relationship between laughter and language. Keep
your prediction simple, and logical. There was a pretty huge clue in P6 to the careful reader: the
word “semantic[s],” which is the study of meaning via language.
So from here we can see the relationship, “[the angels] have tricked us all with their [meaning of
words] hoax.” “...their...laughter and...the Devil’s have the same [word].” “There are two kinds of
laughter, and we lack the words to distinguish them.”
Execute (Predict): One word (laughter) has two different meanings. Sounds like the word
“laughter” is, by definition, unclear or ambiguous.
(A): Yes, language (the word “laughter”) is capable of concealing distinct meanings (there is no
order; there is order) and this is correct.
(B): Opp. This directly contradicts the passage, “...deprived...of their...meaning, the place
assigned to them...make us laugh. Initially, therefore, laughter is the province of the Devil.” If
language cannot be deprived of meaning, then the word ‘laughter’ CANNOT be ambiguous.
(C): Opp. This contradicts the passage. If language is always precise, then the word ‘laughter’
CANNOT be ambiguous.
(D): OS. The word “spiritual” allows us to eliminate this choice. Even though the Angel and Devil
could be considered spiritual beings, there is no evidence or suggestion that language is
unnecessary for them.
Question 5: B

We’re asked to pick an answer that is the ‘’most’’ similar to the Devil’s laughter, so we need to
remember what that is. We can either look to our outline or to P3 to see that the Devil’s laugh is
the loss of meaning or “things have turned out differently than they tried to seem.”
Execute (Eliminate): Regardless of the specifics, the correct answer must necessarily have
something to do with loss of meaning or things turning out differently than they seem.
(A): Opp. This sounds eerily similar to the Angel’s laughter, so it’s wrong because we were
asked for something similar to the Devil’s laughter.
(B): “Laughing…[where] the meaning of a word is twisted” is indeed similar to the nature of the
Devil’s laughter. This is correct.
(C): OS. The Devil’s laughter does not relate to this. If anything, a “complicated task” being
completed is more associated with order, which would make this laugh more similar to the
Angel’s laugh.
(D): OS. Concealing true intentions or deception might sound sort of devilish. This distractor is
picked frequently as a result of bringing outside information. If you think of the Devil as “evil”,
this answer is attractive because it sounds like something an evil Devil could reasonably do.
Remember: it’s all about what the author thinks, not us! The author specifically made a point
that the Devil is not evil but anti-rational.
Question 6: C
The question asks for something that the author would NOT agree with so we either need to
search for an answer that does NOT sound like something the author would say, or find the
answer choices that the author agrees with and eliminate them.
Execute (Eliminate): The correct answer must be contrary to something the author said, and
the wrong answers will be something the author said (one way or another).
(A): Opp. This was a large point made by the author in P2, so not something he would disagree
with.
(B): Opp. This is also something that the author discusses in P2. If equilibrium between
rationality (Angel) and irrationality (Devil) is needed for the good of the world, then the Devil is
necessary for that good. Thus, the Devil serves an important function, and the author would
agree with this.
(C): Just as one word can help us eliminate a distractor, one word can help us confirm the
correct answer. The word “simultaneous” is critical. The author has argued that there are two
types of laughter, and that the word ‘laughter’ is ambiguous and has (at least) two different and
completely opposite meanings. But the author never said they can be expressed
simultaneously, which means the author would likely NOT agree with this.
(D): Opp. This is the primary distractor. Be careful not to think only in terms of the Devil’s
laughter (things being deprived of their meaning). The Angel’s laughter rejoiced at rationality, so
the Angel’s laughter is a very plausible example of laughing without seeing something deprived
of meaning.
Question 7: A
Use your outline to help find passage info that gives the relationships between laughter and
meaning. The order of events is clear in P3: there is a loss of meaning (caused by some
unknown, but that doesn’t matter), then laughter occurs.
Execute (Eliminate): Our correct answer should say, somehow, that loss of meaning led to
laughter.
(A): “Immutable” means “unable to be changed”. So this choice, reworded reads: “laughter
would not have happened if the meaning of everything always stayed the same”. That must be
true, according to the passage. If the meaning of things could not be changed, how could the
Devil have ever laughed? He wouldn’t have been able to.
(B): OS. This answer implies some relationship between laughter and the debate about
meaning of things, which was never discussed. It’s also a distortion because of the extreme
word “no.”
(C): Opp/Dist. The author says that there are 2 types of laughter and that each one is the
opposite of the other, but we use the same word “laughter” for both. So, it has at least 2
meanings, not no meanings! And again, there’s that extreme word “no.”
(D): Dist. This is claiming something close to, but not quite what the author said. The word to
notice here is “only”. If an extreme is being used, you’d better be sure that the author was
extreme about his subject matter. The author says there are two types of laughter, each of
which has its own meaning. The author never says there are only 2 forms of laughter, or rules
out the possibility there might be more, each with its own meaning.
P1. soc (Austen)→pol. novel/society workings
P2. pol novel=tension, conflict
P3. opposition. Author’s voice subordinate.
P4. Examples.
Goal: to discuss the characteristics of the pol. novel.
Answer Key
8. C
9. B
10. C
11. D
12. B
13. A
Explanations
Question 8: C
Though this may not look like the usual inference question, you can think of it as one
because you’re asked to come to a conclusion based on what the author wrote in the
passage. The first question to ask yourself is “what is an ideological issue?” Even if you
can’t come up with a good answer, you know that it’s not something discussed in the social
novel, which just accepts things as they are. So if it’s not relevant to the social novel, it’s got
to be relevant to the political novel. Over and over the author says the same thing about the
political novel—it has tension, conflict, internal warfare—all of which contribute to its
“interest” and “aura of high drama” (check this out in paragraph two). So what does he think
about the political novel? All that conflict makes it a good, strong, read. Does he waver on
this opinion? Nope, he repeats it throughout the passage.
Execute (Predict): All that tension makes for a good political novel.
(A): Opp. No way does the author think that dramatic appeal is subordinate to anything
else. He actually thinks it’s the core of a political novel.
(B): Opp. The author is definitely not puzzled; he’s very clear about what he thinks.
(C): This is exactly how the author feels—completely confident about the benefits of tension
and conflict.
(D): Opp/OS. Not only is the author not disappointed, but he never says that combining
personal experience with ideology leads to confusion (which is not the same thing as conflict).
Question 9: B
Whenever you see the words “in order to,” you know you have a function question. If you
re-word it, the question becomes “why did the author discuss Jane Austen?” How nice that
you put her name in your outline for the first paragraph (it’s often a good idea to include a
name or date in that outline; it makes it easier to research). Looking back at P1, it’s clear
that Austen represents the social novel, which is the precursor of the political novel. So
Austen is an example of the evolution from the social to the political novel.
Execute (Predict): The function is to show the move from social to political novel.
(A): FUD. Read carefully here; this answer makes Austen into a political novelist.
(B): This fits perfectly!
(C): Opp. Criticize the social novel? Not when the author calls Austen “a great artist.” And
just because the author says that the social novel is different from the political one, it
doesn’t mean he’s criticizing it.
he author makes no such argument.

(D): OS. T
Question 10: C
Question Type: Detail

Again we’re back to the first paragraph, and we know this because that’s where the author
first mentions the emergence of the political novel. First of all, he writes that “the novelist’s
attention had necessarily to shift from the gradations within society to the fate of society
itself.” Then, a political novel is “the kind in which the idea of society, as distinct from the
mere unquestioned workings of society, has penetrated the consciousness of the
characters in all of its profoundly problematic aspects.” In other words, society’s issues, not
its stability, become paramount in the political novel.
Execute (Predict): Something about knowing, or being concerned about, society itself,
rather than just working within it.
(A): FUD. Austen represents the social, not the political novel. Make sure you read the
answer choices really carefully.
(B): FUD. This example is in the wrong paragraph. When you’re dealing with a detail
question, be sure to stay with the paragraph in which that detail appears.
(C): Yes! As we predicted, the novelist has to know about those issues to write about them.
here’s no mention of either critics or of consensus. The author is writing purely

(D): OS. T
from his own point of view.
Question 11: D
Question Type: Definition-in-Context
Hmm, what’s a monolith? The prefix “mono” at least tells us that’s it’s “one,” so even if there
are lots of ideas, they’re probably incorporated into one. Since this quote comes from the
end of the second paragraph, take a look at that portion of the passage and determine what
it’s all about. The “monolith” line comes in as one of three conflicts that political novels
explore:
1. the timelessness of abstraction vs. the flux of life

2. the monolith of program vs. the diversity of motive
3. the purity of ideal with the contamination of action
Let’s decode the structure of that sentence. The author first mentions “abstraction” (read:
“ideas”), and contrasts it with “flux of experience,” then gives several other examples in the
same structure, and ends with “ideal” vs. “contamination of action.” Each example is
contrasting “ideology” with “the real world,” and each puts the high-minded ideology first,
and the action second. That could give us a clue that “monolith of ideas,” coming, as it
does, before “richness and diversity of motive,” refers to the ideology characteristic of the
political novel.
Execute (Eliminate): Though we might still be vague on what the quote means, we know
the correct answer has to have something to do with the fact that political novels always
have some ideology at their core.
hat an author writes is relevant to the passage, but not the method he uses to
(A): OS. W
write it.
(B): Dist. Each of the examples has a different theme; there’s no unity here.
(C): FUD. Well yes, there is conflict, but the cause of it is the tension between ideology and
human experience.
(D): Here’s the focus on ideology, as we were looking for.
Question 12: B
Question Type: Main idea
We had a one-word summary of this paragraph; that’s all we needed in the reading and all
we need to get the answer to this question. What’s the content of the paragraph? Examples
of the political novel. That’s the prediction, and that’s the answer.
Execute (Predict): The content is a bunch of examples of the political novel.
here’s no reference to the social novel in this paragraph, so it can’t be comparing

(A): OS. T
the two.
(B): Absolutely! The paragraph is full of examples of the “apolitical temptations” of various
political novels, and it acts as a list of those themes.
(C): Distortion/Extreme. This goes too far. According to the second sentence of the
paragraph, the paragraph is a list of political novels turning to “apolitical temptations”, but
the author never says the novels become apolitical in the process. Not only that, but the
reference to “all” makes this an extreme answer; the author says that political novels
“characteristically” take an apolitical turn, but that’s a far cry from saying that all of them do.
(D): FUD. The author does say in the first sentence of the paragraph that the “political
novelist’s desires… play a pivotal role in the novel’s dialectic,” but the content of the
paragraph itself—which is what the question asks about—is given over to examples of
these desires and how they are expressed in several novels.
Question 13: A
The question asks, in so many words, what the author would agree with (‘endorse”). Think
like an expert. Over and over the author emphasizes “internal warfare” and “tension”
between individual emotions and actions, and the ideology which characterizes a political
novel. It’s often hard to make a prediction for an inference question, but our best prediction
here is that the answer will relate to this main point about internal tensions.
Execute (Predict): The author thinks that the two components of a political novel are in
conflict with each other.
(A): This fits right in line with the author’s oft-repeated point. And if you didn’t think that
emotions and ideology could conflict, you couldn’t possibly adopt the author’s view that
those two things conflict in political novels.
(B): OS/Dist. The author isn’t writing about any new form of literature, but very specifically
about the political novel. Also be careful of the extreme word “any.” It takes the author’s
ideas much beyond the scope of his writing.
he conflict is in a political novel, not a social one. Notice how often these
(C): Opp. T
questions have thrown in “social” instead of “political.” Don’t fall into the trap of this word
substitution.
he passage makes no reference to “most novelists” or to prior prejudices.

(D): OS. T
P1. Cong: wants new A of C, ratified by all → strong nat. gov’t. Surprise! Legal?
P2. Madison – legal b/c → good gov’t.
P3. doesn’t justify ¾ state’s’ ratification (→ reduced sovereignty)
P4. new const. → strong gov’t but legal to affect states’ sovereignty?
P5. moral authority trumps legal (author)
P6. ethical and historical justification
Goal: To argue for moral justification of new Constitution.
Answer Key
14. A
15. B
16. D
17. C
18. A
Explanations
Question 14: A
As with all detail questions, this one asks about something explicitly stated in the passage,
and takes you right back to paragraph 1.There the author states that because “the Articles
of Confederation did not meet the needs of the newly born United States, the Congress of
the Articles of Confederation authorized commissioners to ‘devise such further provisions as
shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government
adequate to the exigencies of the Union.’” The stated goal was “to establish a strong
national government.” Leaving aside Congress’ surprise at the way the new Constitution
diverged from the Articles of Confederation, and the question of its legality, the justification
for the Constitution is simply that Congress asked for it because the Articles weren’t
adequate.
Execute (Predict): Congress asked for a big change.
(A): Exactly! A perfect match for our prediction. This is also restated in the last paragraph.
(B): FUD. The fact that the Constitution could be ratified by only ¾ of states does mean that
states could refuse, but that’s not why Congress authorized the Constitution.
(C): OS. Not only is this not a reason, but it’s opposite of what the author says about
government entrenching itself from change.
(D): FUD. This provides a reason why Congress was surprised by the provisions of the new
Constitution, but not why they authorized it in the first place.
Question 15: B
Though the answer won’t be explicit in the passage, we have a nice clue here in the
reference to Madison. P2 is all about Madison’s defense of the Constitution, primarily that it
does what it was supposed to do: provide “good government.” He goes on to argue that if
that conflicts with the Articles, “the Articles must yield.” In other words, in a conflict, the
greater goal must win, and since that’s exactly what happened with the new Constitution, its
legality can be supported by resolving the conflict using that conflict resolution principle.
Execute (Eliminate): It’s often hard to predict the answer to an inference question, but you
can get rid of any answer which isn’t supported by Madison’s views as stated in paragraph
two.
eace in the nation? Where did that come from?

(A): OS. P
(B): Madison actually did use conflict resolution principles to make a judgment about
legality. So it’s reasonable to say he believed that those principles “can” be used in such a
way, as this answer choice says.
(C): Opp. I n paragraph three (and right away this is the wrong paragraph), unanimous
confirmation is last on Madison’s list.
(D): Opp. The new Constitution did the exact opposite. If it had corresponded to
expectations, Congress wouldn’t have been surprised by it, or questioned its legality.
Question 16: D
Note that the question asks about an assumption we can make from the author’s
statements, not those of Congress or Madison. If you noted “author,” “legal” and “moral” in
your label for paragraph 5, that will give you a quick reference point. So back to P5, where,
in considering the legal rights of states, the author asks “Does this [that it may not be legal]
imply that the Constitution ratified by the states has no moral authority?” and answers “Not
necessarily.” Turn this around to mean that something can have moral, if not legal weight.
And there’s your prediction.
Execute (Predict): Something can have moral, if not legal weight.
(A): OS. The author never states or implies how to determine a constitution’s legality,
he author argues just the opposite of this.

(B): Opp. T
(C): Dist/Opp. The extreme word “never” is a tip off that this answer goes beyond the
author’s intentions. And it’s also opposite to what the author did—determine morality
irrespective of legality.
(D): This is a clear restatement of the author’s view and our prediction.
Question 17: C
Once again our passage summary can tell us exactly where to research the answer. Your
label for P1 should say “Surprise!”, or something like it, regarding the actual Constitution
that the commissioners submitted. Skimming that paragraph, we see that Congress
expected the revision to be “done through alterations of the Articles of Confederation”
inferring that Congress believed that modification would be adequate to create good
government. Consequently, they anticipated that the new Constitution would tweak the old
Articles but look pretty much like them. But it didn’t, which made Congress “surprised by the
radically new terms of the Constitution submitted.” It’s that great deviation from the Articles
that Congress didn’t foresee.
Execute (Predict): That there would be a huge difference between the Articles and the
Constitution.
(A): FUD. This answer choice concerns the eventual ratification of the Constitution itself.
Congress may have been surprised that ratification didn’t require a unanimous vote, but we
have no evidence in the passage that Congress didn’t think the new Constitution would be
ratified, or would not be unanimous.
(B): FUD. This is the author’s concern, not Congress’.
(C): Absolutely right! Congress didn’t foresee that the commission would ditch the Articles
on the grounds that, as Madison said, “Where the goal of amending the Articles conflicts
with the goal of creating good government, the Articles must yield.” Congress thought that
just amending the Articles would be fine—they didn’t foresee that the commission would
have to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch to make a good Constitution.
ongress requested the revision, so definitely anticipated some change to the

(D): Opp. C
Articles.
Question 18: A
Question Type: Reasoning Beyond the Text (Weaken)
With this type of question, you can immediately anticipate that the answer will be a new idea
that runs counter to something in the passage, thus weakens it. Since this question is
specifically about the argument in defense of the Constitution’s legality, your first step is to
review Madison’s argument. We already know his primary defense—creation of good
government.
Execute (Predict): Something about the Constitution, as submitted, that would contradict
the principle of good government.
e predicted something along these lines. If non-unanimous ratification (which was

(A): W
indeed a part of the new Constitution) was not compatible with good government, it would
weaken Madison’s justification.
(B): OS. Nothing in the passage even touches on this idea so it can’t weaken any
contention.
(C): Opp. Madison would have agreed with this since it’s why the commissioners
abandoned the Articles.
his is precisely what the author argues in P5.
(D): Opp. T
P1. Divided power → fiscal problems, incl. 1980s deadlock
P2. Power fragmented. Have finance minister?
P3. Fragmentation in Congress really bad.
P4. Solutions - auto pilot, ↑responsibility?
Goal: to discuss the fiscal problems of divided power and suggest solutions.
Answer Key
19. B
20. A
21. D
22. B
23. C
24. A
Explanations
Question 19: B
This is a nice, straightforward question which is pretty much already answered in your
summary goal, “to discuss causes of fiscal problems and suggest solutions.” The author
also gives you a strong topic sentence, “Divided power creates a built-in hurdle to making
and carrying out fiscal policy,” and you know from your reading that he goes on to explain
this and suggest some solutions. Your prediction should be exactly what you wrote in your
goal. The only thing to be careful of when answering a main idea question is not to be
seduced by details but to stay with an answer that’s broad enough to encompass everything
in the passage.
Execute (Predict): to explain causes of fiscal problems and suggest solutions
pecific s olutions are details, exactly what you want to avoid. Not only that,
(A): FUD/Dist. S
but stating that the author is promoting one solution over-reaches the reality; the author
mentions several solutions but doesn’t support one over the other.
(B): This is a perfect rewording of our prediction.
(C): FUD. This is great distractor answer. It’s close to correct, but it leaves out an important
goal of the author, which is to suggest solutions.
(D): Dist. The author writes that it’s hard to formulate and execute fiscal policy, but he never
quite says it’s impossible. Extreme words like that should raise a red flag that the answer is
a distortion.
Question 20: A
Here’s another main idea question, but one which is specific to a paragraph rather than the
topic of the entire passage. Once again your summary sends you right to the answer. For
P3, you should have written something like “Fragmentation in Congress really bad.” Taking
a quick glance back at the paragraph shows that “In addition to the central divide between
Democrats and Republicans, a number of “parties,” “caucuses,” “gangs,” and other voting
blocs have emerged, some of which tend toward economic oversimplification and inflexible
stands on the budget.” This paragraph is full of details about what makes Congress so
splintered, and that’s a good prediction right there. But think about this one step further. The
author obviously thinks fragmentation is bad, but he doesn’t express his own opinion about
what to do. Keep that in mind, because answers could focus on point of view rather than
content.
Execute (Predict): The correct answer will refer to how Congress is splintered.
(A): Here’s the match for our prediction. The words “diffusion” and “legislative,” refer to the
same things as “fragmentation” and “Congress.”
(B): Dist. As anticipated, here’s an answer which attributes a point of view to the author. Not
only does he not suggest solutions in P3 (they’re in the previous and following paragraphs),
but he also doesn’t move towards “advocating” any one of them.
(C): FUD. It seems pretty clear that the author finds fault with fragmentation in Congress,
but the paragraph is about what produces that diffusion, not whether or not Congress is
worse than the Presidency.
(D): Dist. “Hopeless” is an extreme word, and we know about the problem with
extremes—they usually take the meaning far beyond the author’s intent.
Question 21: D
Question Type: Strengthen/Weaken (Within the Passage)
Read the question carefully; it’s asking for a statement that’s NOT supported in the
passage. There’s no easy way to predict an answer, since it could be anything not
mentioned in the passage. You’ll have to go to the choices to narrow it down, but keep
some strategic points in mind. First, support comes in a lot of different ways. As the
question says, it could be an example or explanation. Evidence could be along the lines of a
quote from an expert, or reference to an historical event. Second, a statement made without
support is often the last sentence in a paragraph. It simply lies there while the next
paragraph goes on to a different idea. This isn’t always the case, but it’s a good point to
keep in mind. Finally, be flexible and let the answer choices guide you.
Execute (Eliminate): Regardless of what the claim is, the passage is going to lack any
support for it.
(A): Opp. “ Automatic pilot” is fully explained in the last paragraph.
(B): Opp. Also in the last paragraph, the author explains the different directions of automatic
pilot and increased responsibility, and the different perspectives and assumptions that
underlie them.
(C): Opp. There are three examples of opposition in P1, the 1980’s deadlock and two later
government shutdowns.
(D): Perfect! Note that this suggestion is not only at the very end of the last paragraph, it’s
at the end of the whole passage, with no support of any kind provided.
Question 22: B
Question Type: Strengthen/Weaken (Beyond the Text)
Since we’re trying to strengthen the author’s argument, the first step is to review what that
is. We’ve got the author’s main idea in our summary goal—essentially, that divided power
leads to fiscal problems or, as the author writes “Divided power creates a built-in hurdle to
making and carrying out fiscal policy.” The right answer will support this idea in some way,
and that’s about the best prediction you can make before actually looking at the answers.
Some answers may weaken the thesis, some may have nothing to do it with it, but only one
will strengthen it. By the way, the words “if true” are the classic ones used for a
strengthen/weaken question. Don’t spend time wondering of the answers are true; accept
every one as true and move on to solving the question.
Execute (Eliminate): Get rid of any answer which either weakens the thesis or has nothing
to do with it.
his answer is way out of scope. “Other countries” and “unjust electoral systems”
(A): OS. T
are irrelevant to the author’s contention.
(B): Yes! This may not pop out at first glance, but it’s the author’s contention in reverse. In
the first paragraph he states that one reason for the fiscal hurdle is “when the president is
leading in a direction in which the public and its representatives do not want to go.” Flip that
around to say that when the public, and most especially its representatives (i.e., Congress),
agree with Presidential policy, fiscal problems are avoided.
(C): OS. Re-election of Congressional members is out of the scope of the passage.
(D): FUD. Well, yes, public opinion can be sharply divided. But the author’s thesis is more
about the mechanisms of government itself and how they have trouble acting; the author
would probably agree that the public often disagrees with itself, but that point is somewhat
outside the main thesis about fiscal policy-making.
Question 23: C
Question Type: Apply
This reasoning question requires you to incorporate new information and determine how it
affects the reasoning in the passage. A glance at the answers shows that it’s either going to
strengthen or weaken it. The question takes us to the first paragraph and the 1980s.
According to the author, the deadlock “reflects the fact that the president’s solution—drastic
reduction of the federal role in the domestic economy—did not command broad support.”
The new information is that Congress wanted the same thing. If there actually was no
conflict between the President and Congress about this point, it would weaken the author’s
claim about the cause of the 1980s deadlock, so we’re looking for an answer which reflects
that conclusion.
Execute (Predict): Predict an answer that has Congress and the President agreeing.
(A): Dist. Certainly the author thinks presidential policy plays a part in creating fiscal
problems, but he never says presidents are “largely responsible” for them.
(B): FUD. Since the question takes us to the first paragraph, that’s where we have to stay.
This answer is in P2.
(C): Exactly right—no conflict, no deadlock, which means there would have been no
deadlock to cause the deficit in the 1980s.
(D): FUD. Even though we know that the author argued that “...fragmentation of power and
responsibility is...even more extreme in the Congress,” the new information doesn’t
strengthen the author’s argument in the first paragraph.
Question 24: A
Though this is an inference question, we have some pretty solid clues to the answer. The
question is about the automatic pilot solution to divided power, and the author describes it as
agreeing “in advance on strict rules, such as a fixed monetary growth path, or constitutionally
required budget balance.” (P4) We can infer that any answer which supports this approach will
be the right one.
Execute (Predict): The prediction is general, but will have to do with something that
supports the autopilot approach.
(A): This is pretty much an exact restatement of what one of the tenets of auto pilot.
(B): FUD. This is more in line with the suggestion in the second paragraph—having a
finance minister—and, in any case, the author never suggests that the president would be
the person to select the minister.
(C): FUD. This is more like the “by holding elected officials responsible for their policies”
solution.
(D): OS. Neither the Supreme Court nor the constitutionality of new regulations is
mentioned in the passage.
P1. Collaborative visual arts (scenic, costume, lighting). How done?
P2. Theatrical arts – part of audience experience
P3. Set designers bring artistic voice to production
P4. Detailed models → building sets
P5. Specialization – often needs compromise to actually build design (Tempest) Shows
today.
Goal: to discuss the collaborative work of set design
Answer Key
25. D
26. A
27. D
28. B
29. C
30. C
Question 25: D
Though making a prediction is a great way to get to an answer choice quickly, with a
question like this one there’s no way to do it, since anything in the passage could be at
issue. Importantly, this is a sign that the question should probably be skipped outright at
first, and returned to later, after the other (likely easier) questions. But once we do tackle
this question, we’ll just have to go to the answers and evaluate them one by one, based on
the evidence in the passage. The silver lining is that even though the question stem says
we want the answer that is “best supported”, the MCAT question writers can’t just go by the
“best” answer: they have to give us one correct answer that has true support in the
passage, even if that support is well-hidden.
Execute (Eliminate): Find a choice with direct, concrete support in the passage.
(A): Opp. The passage does contrast theater with other visual arts in P1, which would seem
to support this choice. However, in P2 the author clarifies that there are many significant
“visual aspects” to the theater. So saying that theater is not visual art, as this choice does,
would be too far.
(B): Dist. This answer choice also might seem correct at first glance, based on the
“compromises” cited at the end of P5. However, to describe these as “technical difficulties,”
which would mean that machinery or computers malfunction during production, is not quite
right.
he author never says this.

(C): OS. T
(D): Despite its extreme-sounding language, this choice is actually the correct answer.
There is one key detail in the passage that supports this choice: near the end of P5, the
passage states that compromises in design sometimes have to be made “to even be able to
build” the set. That means that without those compromises, some sets would not be able to
be built as originally conceived; in other words, they’d be impossible.
Question 26: A
We’ve noted that theater is introduced in the second paragraph, so the answer is likely to
come from there (the rest of the passage is specific to set design). Making exact predictions
is hard for questions like this, but it’s good to expect the answer to sit somewhere near the
author’s main point: theater is great, though there are aspects of it that some people don’t
appreciate.
Execute (Eliminate): Look until we find something that relates to and underlies P2.
(A): Exactly! It’s pretty clear that the author assumes that set design is a big part of a
theatrical performance. He wouldn’t spend so much time defending that visual design if that
weren’t true. At this point there’s no need to go to the other answers, but just for the fun of
it…
(B): Dist. The author never says that set design is the most important aspect, there’s just a
strong point that it is important.
(C): Dist. And regarding collaborative arts, the passage depends on them being good, but
not necessarily the very best art forms.
he author seems to think the reader is surprised at the unconventional look of

(D): Opp. T
his own professor, so if anything the assumption would be that most designers do “look the
part,” which would be the opposite of this answer choice.
Question 27: D
Question Type: Strengthen/Weaken (Within the Passage)
As with the first question, we can’t predict until we see the answers. However, take a look at
your passage outline and goal to remind yourself of what’s in the passage in general, (visual
arts, set design, designer, scene shop), since the answer will strengthen something from
the passage. Eliminate anything not in the passage, or so extreme that it distorts the
author’s meaning.
Execute (Eliminate):
(A): Dist. These craftspeople are certainly important—they create the sets—but the words
“most important” make this an extreme answer.
(B): FUD. The set designer designs and constructs models (P4), but doesn’t make the sets.
(C): Dist. Honestly, the author might believe this, considering how complimentary the
passage is of set designers. But the question stem asks for an answer supported by
evidence in the passage, and there’s no singular place to point to in the passage that
supports this claim.
(D): Right. The author writes that “The exact mechanism of that rocking, on the other hand,
whether it be hydraulic platforms, sophisticated video projections, or ultra-strong cables
from the fly space above, is left to the engineers, carpenters, and technicians in the ‘scene
shop.’” In other words, all those people in the scene shop “construct the objects on stage in
a major theater production.”
Question 28: B

Now we’re asked to compare early to modern theater productions, which we didn’t
specifically note in our summary. But you should have written something like “shows today”
for P5, so it makes sense that if there’s a comparison with old and new, it’s in that
paragraph. There we see the lines “Compromises on the initial design may, of course, have
to be made, but they handled in consultation with the director and the designers, and
especially in today’s big-budget Broadway productions, such scope adjustments are cut to
an absolute minimum.” Since it looks like there aren’t too many compromises today, we can
predict an answer about something that results from needing fewer changes.
There is also a mention in P2 of “modern technology and enhanced production values”,
which could just as easily lead to an answer here: that modern shows are more advanced
and more expensive.
Execute (Predict): Something having to do with (1) fewer changes to the designer’s vision
or (2) bigger and more expensive productions in the modern day.
(A): Opp. The passage says that designers design and builders build in the modern theater,
but this choice says the opposite.
(B): This is a great match! If the modern production turns out to be closer to the set
designer’s vision, fewer changes would have to be made than were required previously.
(C): Opp. This is in direct opposition to what the author writes.
(D): Opp. This is the opposite of our “alternate prediction” of “bigger and more expensive”
from earlier, so it must be wrong.
Question 29: C
The best way to approach a question asking what the author would agree with is to review
your summary to refresh yourself on what the author wrote, because he’ll agree with
anything in line with it. We know he wrote about theater, set design, who conceives and
who builds the sets, and how it works in today’s theater.
Execute (Eliminate): Get rid of anything out of the scope of, or opposite to what the author
wrote.
(A): OS. Not only does the author never hint anything like this, but he’s never critical of set
designers or the building crew.
(B): Dist. In the first paragraph, the author says that the popular perception—in other words,
what most, though not necessarily all, people think—of how some visual arts are created is
“‘Oh, I’m sure it comes together somehow.’” but nowhere in the passage does he say that
literally “no one” appreciates the work.
(C): Perfect! The author does argue that they’re under-appreciated—“nothing more than a
subordinate credit,” even though they are “an ever-larger part of the experience,” who “can
bring a strong and definitive artistic voice to a work; and that voice is often nuanced and
masterful.” Unfortunately, they don’t get the credit they deserve for their important work.
(D): OS/Opp. The author never argues this, and even though “subordinate credit” isn’t
much, it’s at least some form of recognition.
Question 30: C
Unlike so many inference questions, this one gives us clear direction on where to research.
If the words “dance” and “opera” are in your outline, great! If not, then scan the passage for
them or try to remember where you read them.
Turns out they’re in the third paragraph, where the author writes “Needless to say,
designers for the performing arts (which include dance and opera as well as theater) can
bring a strong and definitive artistic voice to a work; and that voice is often nuanced and
masterful.” In the previous paragraph, theatrical design is called “one of the definitive
collaborative art forms.” We can expect our answer to come from those two statements,
since the rest of the passage is all about theater set design. There’s going to be only one
answer which stays within the realm of the relevant ideas, and that’s the one we’ll choose.
Execute (Eliminate): Get rid of any answer outside the scope of ideas about dance and
opera, which are collaborative arts.
(A): Opp. The author groups them with theater, which suggests that their sets will be
designed and built similar to those in theatre. And the process the author describes for
theatre isn’t very “organic”: it’s deliberate and closely managed.
(B): OS. This is never stated or even suggested.
(C): Bingo! This is exactly what we read.
(D): Opp. In P2 the author says that theatrical design, specifically “scenic, costume, and
lighting design—are not generally “why [one] goes to the theater.” Given that the author
equates dance and opera with theater, we could expect the same would be true for dance
and opera, and this statement would be false.
P1. Intro “Incidents.” (1861). First thought a novel. Jean Yellin – real story of Harriet Jacobs
P2. Why thought to be a novel.
P3. More reasons. They said mostly too good to be written by Af-Am woman.
P4. 1980s Yellin’s research → real account.
P5. Yellin’s reasoning Jacob’s daughter Louisa.
Goal: To show evidence in support of Yellin’s theory that Jacobs is the author of the
non-fiction book on Jacob’s life.
Answer Key
31. C
32. D
33. B
34. D
35. B
Question 31: C
How nice that we have a paragraph reference in the question stem! In P2 the author writes
that “Circumstances initially led 19th-century readers to receive the book as a work of fiction
in the tradition of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written as a thinly veiled political tract in the
Abolitionist cause.” So Uncle Tom’s Cabin is included as an example of a work of fiction that
was similar to Incidents, and serves as a precedent for considering other such books fiction.
Execute (Predict): Its precedence for thinking of similar books as fiction.
(A): OS. We don’t know anything about the particular racial stereotyping in either book, and
we can’t assume anything based on our own knowledge. As far as the passage tells us, the
stereotyping seems to be on the part of people reading the books, not from the books
themselves.
(B): OS. The author doesn’t mention at all how well or poorly written Uncle Tom’s Cabin is.
(C): Right on! “The type of book readers believed Incidents to be” is, as the passage states,
a novel. So this is exactly what we predicted: Uncle Tom’s Cabin serves as a precedent that
would lead readers to think that Incidents is also a novel.
(D): Opp. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was never thought of anything but a work of fiction. There’s no
confusion here.
Question 32: D
Since the answer to an inference question depends on the choices given, we can’t make a
firm prediction here. But we do know that the author would agree with anything he already
agrees with in the passage, so let’s get a good handle on that. The author agrees that
Incidents was first considered fiction (P1), that readers had a hard time believing that the
“woman depicted in the book…could write a work so rooted in the melodramatic literary
tradition popular among female readers and authors of the time” (P2), that Yellin’s research
was thorough (P3), and that Incidents i s a non-fiction book (P4). Whichever answer stays
most in line with those claims is the one we’re looking for.
Execute (Eliminate): Get rid of any answer which doesn’t reflect what we know the author
believes.
(A): OS. The author has no opinion about this one way or the other.
(B): OS. Way, way OS. This must come from some other passage altogether because it’s
surely not in this one.
(C): OS/Extreme. While the author notes that it was popular among women, the relative
popularity versus other books and other groups is unknown.
(D): Yes, though it takes a little thought. While Incidents itself is not a novel (which is why you
may have looked askance at this choice), the example of Uncle Tom's Cabin in P2
demonstrates that the author believes that novels can illustrate political beliefs during that
period in history, as the book is described as a "thinly veiled political tract".
Question 33: B
By now we know that when dealing with an EXCEPT question, we want to turn it around
and look for what is in the passage. The right answer is the one that isn’t there. We can’t
predict what that is, so we’re just going to have to check each answer and choose the one
that’s not something Yellin used to support her conclusion.
Execute (Eliminate): Eliminate any answer that’s in the passage and mentions something
Yellin used to support her idea.
(A): Opp. We read this in the last paragraph.

(B): Bingo! Child is indeed listed as editor, but Yellin doesn’t use this information to support
her conclusion.
his is in P5 where the author writes “Such matters would be deemed
(C): Opp. T
inappropriate for a woman to discuss publicly in 1861.” This statement is used as support
that breaking this social taboo made the author want to insist on anonymity, thus making it
likelier that an author like Jacobs would be the true author, but wanted to hide her identity.
(D): Opp. This is exactly what Yellin concluded after doing her research (P4).
Question 34: D
This question gives us four different scenarios and asks us to choose the one that’s most
analogous to the information in the passage. Without having read the answer choices, we
can’t make any firm predictions; however, we can know what we’re looking for in general.
The passage is all about a book which was originally thought to be a work of fiction, then
proven to be a work of fact. All the rest is detail. It’s a soft prediction to be sure, but let’s
look for an answer that mirrors this theme
Execute (Predict): The answer will point to something that was initially mistaken as false
(or fiction), then shown to be true.
(A): OS. This scenario doesn’t include the required initial mistake and eventual correction.
(B): OS. Neither does this one.
(C): Distortion. Tempting, but no. There’s an unfortunate artist who wasn’t recognized in his
time, but this choice is missing a mistake in authorship.
(D): Perfect! We’ve got the initial mistake—it’s a forgery—and the eventual correction—it’s
real. We even have the careful analysis, similar to Yellin’s comprehensive research.
Question 35: B
This new fact relates to the misgivings some had about believing a black woman was able
to write so competently, but If it turns out that Jacobs dictated Incidents to a white person
who then edited it for content, it would explain how the book is so well written. It’s important
to keep in mind that when a person dictates something, she’s still considered the author
even though she’s not the one holding the pen. If it were common for slaves to dictate their
memoirs to whites, who then edited them, then it’s quite possible that book could be a
non-fiction rendition of the slave’s actual experiences. That, of course, is what Yellin
contends, so it would strengthen her argument.
Execute (Predict): It would strengthen Yellin’s argument.
(A): Opp. Dictating a memoir to Child wouldn’t make Child the author. The author is still the
person who’s dictating the events. Besides, Yellin never posits Child as the author.
(B): This works nicely. The editor’s work would account for the good grammar and spelling,
and the ability to write a book at all. Remember that the initial thinking was that the book
was too good for an African American woman to have written it about herself. But with a
white editor sprucing it up, it could well be a non-fiction book.
(C): Distortion. This choice is wrong by the passage, because Yellin didn’t think that Jacobs
wrote the book by herself. Yellin’s thesis is that Jacobs was assisted by her daughter,
Louisa.
(D): OS. There’s no reason to believe that this new evidence would influence a modern
reader’s opinion on the author’s anonymity decision either way.
P1. Underwater wrecks = time capsules. SCUBA helps recovery. Need to be careful.
P2. Type of archeology. Recovery needs good preservation and recording.
P3. Extraction needs skill. Must conserve artifacts.
P4. Infer human activity from artifacts and context. Need documentation.
Goal: To describe the importance of underwater archaeology and the reasons for care and
skill required.
Answer Key
36. A
37. B
38. A
39. B
40. C
Question 36: A
It’s always nice to have main idea questions because we already have the answer—it’s a
restatement of what we wrote in our summary as the goal.
Execute (Predict): describe the importance of underwater archaeology and the care and
skill required of excavators.
(A): Good choice! This answer hits both themes in the passage—the importance of nautical
archeology because of insights gained into human history, and the necessity for the
exploration and salvage to be carefully documented and preserved.
(B): OS. To chronicle means to record events in chronological order, which the passage
doesn’t do.
(C): Opp. In almost every paragraph, the author hits the themes of conservation, recording
and documentation, all of which can come under the title of standardized methods. He’s
definitely not arguing against adherence, but for it.
(D): OS. Though it may be true that the author would like to encourage more underwater
archeology, he never says that, so it can’t possibly be the main idea.
Question 37: B
Since most of the passage is about careful handling and documentation of recovered
artifacts, and this detail question asks for something general about underwater archeology,
we’ll probably find the answer in the first, introductory paragraph. Toward the end of that
paragraph the author writes “However, the development of the Self-Contained Underwater
Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) gear has made many more sites accessible to systematic
investigation.” So it seems that SCUBA gear made more underwater sites available for
scientific exploration rather than just for “treasure hunting.”
Execute (Predict): SCUBA gear opened up more sites.
(A): OS. There’s no reference to advances in conservation techniques. Actually, the author
seems to emphasize using tried and true techniques.
(B): Perfect! This is a great match for our prediction.
(C): FUD/OS. Not only is systematic record keeping not what made more sites available,
but the comparative word “greater” indicates that previously record keeping was shoddy,
which isn’t suggested in the passage.
(D): FUD. The study of underwater wreckage was facilitated by the development of SCUBA
gear, not the other way around.
Question 38: A
The question tells us that we’re in paragraph one, but don’t waste your time reading the
entire paragraph—just scan for the word “obsidian.” It’s in the second sentence, but if we
read it in context, we’ll see that the first sentence says that “The study of underwater
wreckage can be a significant part of the study of human history.” Obsidian serves as an
example of human activity, specifically, exploration in search of material from which to make
tools. Further on the author says that “Exploration of and immigration…was, until very
recently, accomplished solely by some type of water transport” and “There have always
been losses of watercraft due to storms, accidents, and wars.” This tells us exactly what we
need to know: the search for obsidian is an example of human activity carried on by sea
and subject to shipwrecks. Let’s make that our prediction.
Execute (Predict): The search for obsidian is an example of human activity carried on by
sea and subject to shipwrecks.
(A): Exactly. This answer is just a restatement of our prediction, and a perfect match.
(B): FUD. Perhaps obsidian tools could well have been found in Aegean Sea shipwrecks,
but this isn’t why the author mentions it.
(C): OS. There’s no such comparison or any reference to resources in either place. We
could, of course, infer that there was no obsidian in Greece, which is why Greeks sailed to
Melos, but this point would be completely tangential to the author’s main thesis. This is a
passage about underwater wreckage, not ancient Greek natural resources!
(D): Distortion. The Greeks found obsidian across the Aegean sea, but there’s no evidence
in the passage that they traded for it. Besides, trade routes are completely irrelevant to any
point the author is trying to make in the passage.
Question 39: B
Keep in mind that all inference questions are completely based on the information in the
passage and the answer must (not could, but must) be a conclusion that can be drawn from
what the author wrote. Now we have a question asking pretty much about the difference
between nautical and traditional archaeologists. We know only one firm fact about
it—nautical archaeologists work underwater and traditional archaeologists work on land.
The author never clearly says this, but it’s obvious from his descriptions of what underwater
archaeologists do, so we can look for the answer that characterizes this difference, and
eliminate any answer which refers to a difference not in the passage.
Execute (Eliminate): Get rid of any answer which is not a conclusion we can make from
the information in the passage.
(A), (C), and (D): OS. The author never compares the two areas of archeology on the basis
of which one is more concerned with what.
(B): This fits what we know. Human beings are obviously not adapted to underwater
living—that’s why we need SCUBA gear—while terrestrial archaeologists work in more
familiar environments. So underwater archaeologists are more familiar with that watery
environment than are traditional archaeologists.
Question 40: C
As often happens with an Apply question, we have four new pieces of information which we
have to fit into the passage. Let’s decode the question first. Fundamentally, it asks for what
nautical archaeologists are most interested in. The first paragraph tells us that “The study of
underwater wreckage can be a significant part of the study of human history.” In the last
paragraph, the author is more explicit, writing “To an archaeologist, human activities are far
more significant than a ship or its contents.” Put these together and we get the conclusion
that nautical archaeologists are interested in shipwreck artifacts because they can learn a
lot about human activities from them, so let’s look for an answer which gives us something
that would be of interest to nautical archaeologists in their search to understand ancient
human activities.
Execute (Predict): An answer which would help archaeologists understand ancient human
activities.
(A): Distortion. Since archaeologists want to understand human activities in general, they
would be more interested in the mundane, everyday life of a culture, not in a unique,
museum-worthy masterpiece. Besides, based on the passage, museum display might be
risky for artifacts that are so difficult to preserve.
(B): OS. “Sold at a profit” has nothing to do with what nautical archaeologists are interested
in, regardless of what the artifacts are or the intent of the sale.
(C): Bingo! The medical instruments used by a multi-tasked healer and affecting so many,
would tell archaeologists a lot about everyday life, illnesses, and treatments.
(D): OS. While possibly useful, the archaeologists would be more concerned about the
context in which the skeletons were found rather than the skeletons themselves.
JLY0618

MCAT 5 e Cars 1 Homework

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MCAT 5 e Cars 1 Homework

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Kaplan MCAT Prep

CARS 1 Lesson Book Extra Practice Answers & Explanations

Passage 1 (Questions 1-7) (pages 374-375)

Sample Passage Outline

P1.​ ​Ang ≠ good & Dev ≠ bad ---> more complicated

P2.​ ​Ang ≈ meaning, Dev ≈ loss of mean; need both in = amounts

P3.​ ​Loss of mean = laugh, initially. So laugh = Dev

P4.​ ​Ang laugh = restore mean, opp of Dev’s

P5.​ ​Ang & Dev laugh @ one another

P6.​ ​2 laughs opp but called same word

Goal:​ To demonstrate 2 different meanings of laughter through the Ang/Dev story

Question Type: ​Function

Execute (Predict):​ The function is to describe the Devil’s laughter.

(A):​ This fits perfectly!

Question Type: ​Main Idea

Question Type: ​Main Idea

Question Type:​ Inference

Question Type: ​Inference

Question Type: ​Inference

Question Type: ​Inference

Sample Passage Outline

P1.​ soc (Austen)→pol. novel/society workings

P2.​ pol novel=tension, conflict

P3.​ opposition. Author’s voice subordinate.

Goal:​ to discuss the characteristics of the pol. novel.

Question Type: ​Inference

Question Type: ​Function

(B):​ This fits perfectly!

​ he author makes no such argument.

Question Type: ​Detail

​ here’s no mention of either critics or of consensus. The author is writing purely

Question Type: ​Definition-in-Context

1. the timelessness of abstraction vs. the flux of life

(D):​ Here’s the focus on ideology, as we were looking for.

Question Type: ​Main idea

Execute (Predict): ​The content is a bunch of examples of the political novel.

​ here’s no reference to the social novel in this paragraph, so it can’t be comparing

Question Type: ​Inference

​ he passage makes no reference to “most novelists” or to prior prejudices.

Sample Passage Outline

P2.​ Madison – legal b/c → good gov’t.

P3.​ doesn’t justify ¾ state’s’ ratification (→ reduced sovereignty)

P5.​ moral authority trumps legal (author)

P6.​ ethical and historical justification

Goal:​ To argue for moral justification of new Constitution.

Question Type: ​Detail

Execute (Predict):​ Congress asked for a big change.

Question Type: ​Inference

​ eace in the nation? Where did that come from?

Question Type: ​Inference

Execute (Predict):​ Something can have moral, if not legal weight.

​ he author argues just the opposite of this.

Question Type: ​Inference

(B): ​FUD. ​This is the author’s concern, not Congress’.

​ ongress requested the revision, so definitely anticipated ​some​ change to the

Question Type: ​Reasoning Beyond the Text (Weaken)

​ e predicted something along these lines. If non-unanimous ratification (which was

Sample Passage Outline

P1.​ Divided power → fiscal problems, incl. 1980s deadlock

P2.​ Power fragmented. Have finance minister?

P3.​ Fragmentation in Congress really bad.

P4.​ Solutions - auto pilot, ↑responsibility?

Question Type: ​Main idea

P1. Ang ≠ good & Dev ≠ bad ---> more complicated

P2. Ang ≈ meaning, Dev ≈ loss of mean; need both in = amounts

P3. Loss of mean = laugh, initially. So laugh = Dev

P4. Ang laugh = restore mean, opp of Dev’s

P5. Ang & Dev laugh @ one another

P6. 2 laughs opp but called same word

Goal: To demonstrate 2 different meanings of laughter through the Ang/Dev story

Question Type: Function

Execute (Predict): The function is to describe the Devil’s laughter.

(A): This fits perfectly!

Question Type: Main Idea

Question Type: Main Idea

Question Type: Inference

Question Type: Inference

Question Type: Inference

Question Type: Inference

P1. soc (Austen)→pol. novel/society workings

P2. pol novel=tension, conflict

P3. opposition. Author’s voice subordinate.

Goal: to discuss the characteristics of the pol. novel.

Question Type: Inference

Question Type: Function

(B): This fits perfectly!

he author makes no such argument.

Question Type: Detail

here’s no mention of either critics or of consensus. The author is writing purely

Question Type: Definition-in-Context

(D): Here’s the focus on ideology, as we were looking for.

Question Type: Main idea

Execute (Predict): The content is a bunch of examples of the political novel.

here’s no reference to the social novel in this paragraph, so it can’t be comparing

Question Type: Inference

he passage makes no reference to “most novelists” or to prior prejudices.

P2. Madison – legal b/c → good gov’t.

P3. doesn’t justify ¾ state’s’ ratification (→ reduced sovereignty)

P5. moral authority trumps legal (author)

P6. ethical and historical justification

Goal: To argue for moral justification of new Constitution.

Question Type: Detail

Execute (Predict): Congress asked for a big change.

Question Type: Inference

eace in the nation? Where did that come from?

Question Type: Inference

Execute (Predict): Something can have moral, if not legal weight.

he author argues just the opposite of this.

Question Type: Inference

(B): FUD. This is the author’s concern, not Congress’.

ongress requested the revision, so definitely anticipated some change to the

Question Type: Reasoning Beyond the Text (Weaken)

e predicted something along these lines. If non-unanimous ratification (which was

P1. Divided power → fiscal problems, incl. 1980s deadlock

P2. Power fragmented. Have finance minister?

P3. Fragmentation in Congress really bad.

P4. Solutions - auto pilot, ↑responsibility?

Question Type: Main idea

Execute (Predict): to explain causes of fiscal problems and suggest solutions

(B): This is a perfect rewording of our prediction.

Question Type: Main idea

Question Type: Strengthen/Weaken (Within the Passage)

(A): Opp. “ Automatic pilot” is fully explained in the last paragraph.

Question Type: Strengthen/Weaken (Beyond the Text)

Question Type: Apply

Question Type: Inference

P1. Collaborative visual arts (scenic, costume, lighting). How done?

P2. Theatrical arts – part of audience experience

P3. Set designers bring artistic voice to production

P4. Detailed models → building sets

Goal: to discuss the collaborative work of set design

Question Type: Inference

he author never says this.

Question Type: Inference

he author seems to think the reader is surprised at the unconventional look of

Question Type: Strengthen/Weaken (Within the Passage)

Question Type: Inference

(C): Opp. This is in direct opposition to what the author writes.

Question Type: Apply

Question Type: Inference

(B): OS. This is never stated or even suggested.

(C): Bingo! This is exactly what we read.

P2. Why thought to be a novel.