SAT Reading and Writing · Competition-style problems

The question demands the comparison showing ‘greatest initial variability’ combined with ‘largest absolute decline,’ while allowing that a style ‘may remain the most variable after translation.’ Willow starts at 15.0, above 9.0 and 7.0, then falls to 10.5, a 4.5-word drop exceeding the 3.5-word drop for Maple and 0.8 for Alder, yet its 10.5 remains above 5.5 and 6.2, so it satisfies both parts at once. The statement that Willow was highest in both periods is true but omits any comparison of decline sizes, so it cannot establish the predicted pattern. The statement about Maple’s roughly 39% decline is true proportionally but answers the wrong qualifier, since the text requires absolute decline. The statement that Alder changed least describes the opposite end of the pattern and does not identify the greatest initial source.

The blank asks for the scope of the fungal benefit, not whether microbes matter. The text establishes absence then presence: ‘Both groups grew at the same rate’ when water was plentiful, but with water scarce the partnered seedlings continued while sterile ones ‘nearly stopped,’ followed by ‘not a constant boost but one’ demanding exclusivity. That makes ‘confined to’ precise because benefit appears only under stress. ‘unrelated to’ fails because partnered seedlings outperform sterile ones under drought, proving a link. ‘diminished by’ reverses direction since stress reveals rather than reduces benefit. ‘observable in’ is true but too weak since it allows benefit elsewhere, which the equal growth disproves.

The question asks how to join the first independent statement to what follows. The material before the blank, ‘The restoration ... took nearly three years,’ can stand alone. What follows, ‘its facade obscured ... was irreversible,’ cannot: ‘obscured’ is a passive participle requiring ‘was,’ and the finite verbs ‘had ... assumed’ and ‘was’ sit inside the ‘that’-clause modifying ‘soot.’ Therefore the second part is an absolute supplement describing the whole first clause and must attach with a comma. The version with a semicolon fails because a semicolon demands an independent clause after it, which the bare absolute cannot supply. The version with a period fails for the same reason, creating a fragment sentence. The version with no punctuation fuses ‘years’ and ‘its’ with no boundary and leaves the supplement unmarked.

The question tests whether the blank can supply the main verb or must be a modifier. The clause already has a finite main verb in ‘has reshaped policy’ with the subject being the whole noun phrase beginning ‘The historian,’ so the blank cannot add another finite verb and must be a participial modifier of ‘historian.’ The form ‘maintaining’ meets that demand because ‘maintaining that the facades were at first a practical response’ correctly describes what the historian does while leaving ‘has reshaped’ as the predicate. The form ‘maintains’ fails because it creates a second finite predicate in the same clause. The form ‘maintained’ fails because as a past-tense verb it also doubles the predicate and as a passive participle it illogically says the historian was maintained. The form ‘has maintained’ fails because it likewise adds a second finite predicate.

The question asks what the copying habit implies about the surviving evidence for Convent B. Convent B is known ‘only from 30 pieces’ copied into Convent A’s books, with half dated to the plague year, while Convent A copied outside music ‘primarily in years when illness left’ its choir short-staffed. A plague year would therefore produce disproportionate copying, so the plague-year share in the survival does not equal its share in lost total output. The choice restating the 200 and 30 counts is true but does not interpret what the selective practice does to the sample. The choice proposing a fixed correction assumes uniform loss, ignoring that copying concentrated in short-staffed years. The choice explaining shortage by lending singers invents a cause the text attributes to illness.

The question tests agreement when the subject is an entire clause rather than a nearby noun. The subject is the long ‘That’ clause: ‘That the carved altar panels and woven hangings ... by successive congregations,’ which as a single proposition takes a singular verb despite containing plural nouns like ‘panels,’ ‘hangings,’ and ‘congregations.’ The evaluation ‘almost miraculous to the local team now documenting’ describes a present judgment, reinforced by ‘now,’ so present tense is required. Only a singular present verb satisfies both conditions. ‘seem’ is plural, attracted to the plural nouns inside the clause. ‘seemed’ is singular in number but past in tense, contradicting ‘now.’ ‘have seemed’ is both plural and perfect, failing number agreement with the clausal subject and adding an unmotivated perfect.

The question asks for an explanation of why equal totals do not prove equal resident support, which requires both the eligibility difference and the verification gap plus the reason the gap matters. The key supplies all three by contrasting ‘limited signers to adults residing in the ward’ with ‘permitted any adult employed in the ward to sign, whether or not that person resided there,’ adding that ‘most mill workers employed in the South Ward resided outside the ward,’ and noting clerks ‘checked residency for North Ward signatures but did not check employment or residency for South Ward signatures.’ The option reporting that each ward submitted 400 signatures repeats the identical total without addressing eligibility or verification, so it cannot explain the inferential problem. The option swapping which ward was verified reverses the notes and draws the wrong inference about nonresidents. The option concluding the South Ward necessarily had fewer resident supporters overstates what is possible into what is proven, since the notes show inflation was possible, not certain.

The question asks how the sentence about date and rehearsal limits functions in the whole argument. The limiting-and-preserving reading fits because the underlined claim that recordings all date from the troupe’s final decade leads directly to cannot show whether earlier performers observed the same division, while the close that at least late in the tradition, invention operated within fixed points saves the late finding. The causal explanation fails because reduced rehearsal time is offered as a reason for caution about generalizing, not as the cause of word-for-word stability. The competing-evidence reading fails because the sentence concedes temporal narrowness without disputing that cues remain word-for-word stable. The degraded-performance reading fails because the text insists the transcripts do establish a late-period conclusion rather than being too inauthentic to use.

The question asks for the comparison that most directly distinguishes the proposed acceleration explanation from improved understanding, where acceleration means faster reading with no better understanding of a given amount of text and scores within 3 points are statistically indistinguishable. The key meets this by pairing different speeds, 32 minutes versus 55 minutes, with the same endpoint comprehension, 81 versus 82 points at the finish, showing speed differs while full-poem understanding does not. The statement pairing the 20-minute scores of 68 versus 41 points with the same speed difference shows an early advantage both explanations predict. The statement pairing retyped-copy and modern-typeface early scores and finishing times shows the typeface causes the early gain without testing whether speed explains it. The statement pairing photographic-copy and hand-copy finishing times and final scores validates the reproduction control without contrasting different speeds.

The question asks what the falling arrears share actually shows. The books show the share fell by half between 1810 and 1820, but during those same years the estate refused to renew the leases of any tenants in arrears, replacing them with newcomers who began their tenancies current on rent. A falling share among a pool from which delinquents were removed need not mean the original tenants recovered; it can reflect compositional change. The key states that replacement, not improved fortunes, explains the trend. The claim of postwar rural recovery repeats the historians’ interpretation the second sentence undermines. The claim that newcomers were more prosperous infers lasting prosperity from the automatic fact of starting current. The description of managers refusing renewals restates the true mechanism but stops short of the point about what the trend does and does not prove.

The question asks why identical June totals hide different year-round populations, so the answer must link the census inclusion rule to corroborating winter evidence. The key fits because it cites that the census ‘counted each person where that person slept’ ‘including temporary boarders,’ so ‘seasonal laborers swelled one town’s June total,’ paired with ‘winter rolls of settled residents only’ showing ‘about 6,500 there versus about 8,000 in the other town.’ The summer-similarity response fails because it restates June equality and addresses summer size rather than year-round residence. The surge-plus-winter-numbers response fails because without the inclusion rule it never explains why the June totals matched. The settled-only response fails because it directly contradicts the inclusion of temporary boarders.

The question asks whether the liver sentence specifies, exemplifies, results from, or replaces the prior generalization. The key fits because the second sentence posits ‘a single controlled chemical response rather than from avoiding freezing itself,’ and the final sentence identifies that response as ‘the liver converts stored glycogen into glucose’ with effects on ‘freezing point’ and ‘ice growth.’ That names the one mechanism, which is specification. ‘For example,’ fails because ‘a single’ allows no set from which the liver action could be one instance. ‘Consequently,’ fails because the conversion is the response itself, not an effect caused by it. ‘Alternatively,’ fails because the final sentence details the same chemical strategy rather than offering a different approach.

The question tests how to link two independent clauses when the second does not explain the first. The words before the blank form an independent clause ending with ‘detail,’ and the words after form another independent clause whose subject is ‘scholars of movement’ and whose main verb is the distant ‘attribute,’ so a semicolon is required. The colon version fails because a colon between independents must introduce an explanation or elaboration, while the second clause disputes the first by attributing gaps rather than restating completeness. The comma-only version fails as a comma splice between independents. The version with no punctuation fails as a fused run-on.

The question demands data showing opposite within-genre rises masked by an overall fall. The key fits because it computes shares from the table: dramas move from 160 of 800 to 96 of 400 and comedies from 15 of 200 to 160 of 1,600, yielding rises from 20% to 24% and from 7.5% to 10%, while the combined move from 175 of 1,000 to 256 of 2,000 yields a fall from 17.5% to 12.8%, exactly the masked pattern the text predicts. The absolute-count statement fails because rising from 175 to 256 describes totals, not share-based masking. The drama-decline statement fails because fewer sampled lines (160 to 96) is mistaken for a lower rate when the rate actually rose. The composition statement fails because rising from 200 of 1,000 to 1,600 of 2,000 explains why masking could occur but cites no within-genre rates to show it did.

The question tests whether the blank is the main verb or a modifier and then subject-verb agreement. The sentence already has a finite main verb ‘continue,’ plural agreeing with plural subject ‘The curators’ notes,’ so the blank before the ‘that’-clause must be nonfinite to avoid two main verbs for one subject. The key ‘indicating’ is a present participle modifying ‘notes.’ The intervening singular ‘altarpiece ... was’ cannot supply the main verb. ‘indicates’ is singular finite and both mismatches ‘notes’ in number and creates a second finite verb alongside ‘continue.’ ‘indicate’ is plural finite and matches ‘notes’ in number but still creates a second finite verb. ‘has indicated’ is singular perfect finite and both mismatches ‘notes’ and adds a second finite verb.

The question asks for the logical relation between the documented fall in Black registration and the additional registration practice in the same counties. The key fits because “also registered” in “several of those same counties” adds a second mechanism that supports the same finding of non-neutral administration, extended by “thus preserve the broader exclusion,” which shows the leniency sustains rather than opposes the first outcome. The contrast phrase fails because the second practice does not present an opposed system but a complementary tactic that preserves the exclusion. The concession phrase fails because isolated leniency does not qualify or limit the sharp fall; it protects the regime that produced it. The causal phrase fails because the leniency is not presented as an effect caused by the fall but as a parallel strategy to shield the tests from challenge.

The question tests whether the phrase after the blank is a sentence or a fragment. The key correctly uses a comma because ‘a discrepancy that ... points to seasonal bias’ has no main predicate for ‘discrepancy’ — ‘points’ belongs to the ‘that’ relative clause, especially obscured by the long insert ‘after correction for lateral transport ... at depth.’ So the phrase must attach as a summative appositive to ‘offset.’ The semicolon version fails because a semicolon cannot leave a noun-phrase fragment standing alone. The period version fails for the same reason, creating a fragment beginning ‘A discrepancy.’ The version with no punctuation fails because ‘offset’ and ‘a discrepancy’ cannot be fused without punctuation marking the appositive.

The question asks for the role of the underlined sentence in the whole argument, not merely what it says. The key fits because the sentence grants the later layer independent worth with ‘four centuries old’ and ‘preserves traces of how subsequent generations reshaped the chapel’ and thereby concedes a reason to keep it. The next sentences then limit full preservation with ‘would keep the earlier paintings permanently out of view’ and the close adopts a split outcome with ‘uncovered in the apse while leaving intact along the nave.’ So the sentence states a cost that the compromise partly honors. The choice about greater importance overstates a concession into a ranking the text never makes. The choice about recording adaptation restates the sentence’s content without naming its concessive work. The choice about the compromise describes the final sentence, not the underlined one.

The question tests punctuation around a conjunctive adverb joining two independent clauses. The first clause ends with ‘workshops,’ the second begins with the gerund subject ‘copying from a finished page’ whose main verb is the distant ‘trained,’ and the contrastive ‘however’ must be preceded by a semicolon and followed by a comma. The key therefore uses a semicolon before and a comma after. The version with a comma before and a semicolon after fails on both sides, creating a splice then an improper break. The version with commas on both sides fails as a comma splice between independents. The version missing punctuation before ‘however’ fails as a fused boundary.

The question requires evidence from ‘only on pond types surveyed in both years’ that comparable habitat did not decline despite a lower ‘overall proportion’ in 2020. The key meets it because the success rate in clay ponds rose from 45 of 60 to 34 of 40 and in silt ponds rose from 20 of 40 to 42 of 70, while the overall rate for all ponds fell from 65 of 100 to 91 of 200, so each comparable type improved as the total fell. The sand-only choice fails because sand was ‘not surveyed’ in 2010 and therefore cannot show change within comparable habitat. The higher-total-successes choice fails because 91 versus 65 counts ignore denominators and the overall rate actually fell. The clay-plus-sand choice fails because it shows only one comparable increase and adds the noncomparable 15 of 90 sand group.

The question tests whether the material after the blank can stand alone. The first part ‘Scholars ... observed that ... once stood’ is independent, but the second part ‘the resulting variants ... preserving a record ...’ has no finite main verb: ‘copied’ and ‘annotated’ are participles, ‘carried’ sits inside the relative clause ‘that pilgrims carried,’ and the key verb ‘preserving’ is participial. It is therefore a supplement, not a second independent clause, and must follow a comma. The comma version does that. The semicolon version fails because a semicolon cannot join an independent clause to a fragment. The period version fails for the same reason, creating a fragment sentence. The version with no punctuation fails because it fuses the supplement to the main clause without required punctuation.

The question asks which transition links limited wear evidence to a qualified reuse. The key fits because the preceding sentence concedes ‘such wear could reflect later collectors’ handling rather than classroom use’ and states ‘the marks alone do not prove how the manual was originally employed,’ so the next claim that specialists treat the text as evidence is true despite that limit. The transition marking concession captures this despite-relationship. The transition marking direct consequence fails because the text explicitly denies that the marks alone prove original use. The transition marking similarity fails because the point is not that specialists resemble conservators but that they act despite uncertainty. The phrase marking an example fails because the specialists’ interpretation is a judgment under uncertainty, not an instance of wear.

The question asks how the sample sentence relates to the decision to set the uniform varnish aside: confirmation, contrast, result, or illustration. The key fits because the prior sentences establish fragility where cleaning ‘removed its binder’ and warn a uniform varnish ‘would therefore soak into the fragile passages,’ and the final sentence strengthens that rejection with ‘confirm binder depletion extensive enough to make any uniform coating sink in and darken.’ That is supporting evidence for the same decision. ‘Nevertheless,’ fails because the samples agree with rather than oppose the decision. ‘Consequently,’ fails because the samples explain why the option was rejected rather than reporting what followed the rejection. ‘For instance,’ fails because the samples give the reason for the decision, not an example of setting an option aside.

The sentence already contains its main verb far after the blank, so the blank must be a modifier, not a second finite verb. The subject ‘The long-dismissed habit’ is completed by ‘has forced a reassessment’ near the end, with ‘specialists in manuscript culture contend’ as a parenthetical supplement set off by commas. Hence the blank needs a present-participial phrase taking the object ‘a deliberate archival logic,’ which the key supplies. The past-participial form cannot take that object in a passive modifier and as a finite past would duplicate the main verb. The simple-present finite would create two main verbs for one subject. The present-perfect finite would do the same while also duplicating tense.

The question tests number and tense inside the relative clause introduced by “that.” The key is plural present because “that” refers to “few surviving songs,” not the nearer “decade”: songs can be “still taught to apprentice singers,” while a decade cannot, and “today” plus “who learn them” and “for their vivid depictions” confirm a present plural antecedent. The singular present fails because it links the verb to the nearer singular noun and clashes with the later plural pronouns. The singular past fails because it is singular for a plural antecedent and past for a present practice marked by “today.” The plural past fails because although plural, its past tense contradicts the ongoing present teaching context.

The question tests whether the material on each side of the blank can stand alone. The key leaves the subject and verb joined: the long subject beginning The suggestion that tidal mixing has only the embedded verbs supplies and deplete inside that-clauses, so it has no main verb until leaves open the question after the blank, making the material before the blank a fragment and the material after the blank a predicate without a subject. Only no punctuation correctly joins subject to verb. The comma version inserts a single comma between subject and verb, which Standard English forbids. The semicolon version joins two non-sentences with a mark that requires independent clauses on both sides. The period version likewise creates two fragments.