SAT Reading and Writing — Module 2 challenge

The question asks what relation the transient survival bears to heritable resistance. The key fits because cells ‘survived despite lacking any known resistance genes’ by entering a ‘dormant state’ with targets ‘temporarily inactive,’ and ‘descendants were once again killed by the same dose,’ so survival looked like resistance without being it. ‘represented’ fails because it claims survival was an instance of true resistance, which the heritability test refutes. ‘required’ fails because it claims resistance caused survival, when dormancy did and genes were absent. ‘explained’ fails because it answers why cells lived through treatment rather than what that survival was in relation to resistance.

The question tests agreement with the nearer subject in a neither-nor construction. The structure is ‘Neither the director’s script ... nor the programs handed out at evening performances over nearly a decade,’ so the verb must agree with the nearer subject ‘programs,’ which is plural, not with the singular ‘script’ or the singular object ‘decade’ inside the prepositional phrase. The surrounding present-tense ‘survives’ supports a present-tense claim, so the plural present ‘provide’ is correct. The form ‘provides’ fails because it is singular, attracted by the first subject ‘script’ and the adjacent singular ‘decade.’ The form ‘provided’ fails because it shifts to past time the general claim does not support. The form ‘will provide’ fails because it shifts to future time without a future signal.

The question asks for an explanation of why equal totals do not prove identical coverage, which requires both counting rules and evidence that the rules produced different membership. The key succeeds because it cites the contrast between ‘legally settled including merchants temporarily abroad’ and ‘physically present on Easter, including visitors but excluding absent merchants’ alongside ‘Both lists contain 212 names’ and notes that wills show the offsetting inclusions were real. The option reporting only the timing and the 212-name match states true background but offers no mechanism for divergence. The option swapping the two definitions reverses the notes and is factually false. The option claiming the royal list should have exceeded 212 names and inferring an undercount contradicts the stated equality and ignores the visitor offset.

The question asks for the central work of the whole text, not for a subordinate detail. The text opens with expected expansion as ice retreats, counters with ‘remained roughly steady even as ice-free days have multiplied,’ then reframes with ‘not how much...fixes initially but how long...remains’ and closes by contrasting production with retention. The key captures that reframing as resolution of expectation versus observation. The satellite-summary reading fails because steady size is the puzzle to be explained, not the purpose. The wind-mixing reading fails because prolonged suspension is supporting mechanism for the retention claim, not the main point. The lowered-productivity reading fails because the text insists initial fixation is unchanged and only fate differs.

The question requires the relation between skepticism and its grounds. The second sentence says the team ‘nevertheless declined to treat as validation’ despite meeting ‘the sensitivity target,’ and the first sentence’s ‘both ... and’ makes sensitivity alone insufficient; the blank sentence’s ‘nearly all detections ... came from a single malfunctioning unit’ plus ‘missed most controlled releases’ supplies the elaborating evidence that justifies the refusal, the work of ‘Indeed,’. ‘Nevertheless,’ fails because it would extend concession rather than give reasons for the already-marked concession. ‘Consequently,’ fails because the malfunction and misses explain the refusal rather than result from it or from including controls. ‘Similarly,’ fails because no second parallel case is introduced.

The question tests separation of two independent clauses where the second reports a misreading. The first ‘Curators ... wanted to show ...’ with ‘wanted’ is independent, and the second ‘Visitors unfamiliar ... often read the pairing as purely decorative’ with ‘read’ is independent. The second does not illustrate the first; ‘missing the argument that color linked labor to ceremony’ signals a contrasting misinterpretation, so a colon requiring explanation is wrong and a full break is required. The period version provides that break. The comma-only version fails as a comma splice. The colon version fails because the second clause reports misunderstanding rather than explanation. The version with no punctuation fails as a fused run-on of two independents.

The question asks what the text establishes about the examinations themselves. The key fits because the text limits both creation and survival: examinations were administered ‘only when officials doubted’ settlement and records were ‘more likely to be preserved when a removal order was challenged,’ while ‘most people who received relief were... never examined at all,’ so the archive overstates mobility. The claim that the examinations record comprehensive birthplace data for all recipients fails because the ‘only when’ and ‘never examined’ qualifiers rule out comprehensiveness. The claim that they show most recipients were settled residents fails because that is true of the relief system as a whole, not of what the examinations contain. The claim about tracking movement for planning fails because the stated purpose was deciding who belonged and could be removed, not guiding planning or spending.

The question demands an explanation that reconciles a larger cross-sectional average with limited longitudinal growth plus differential survival. The key fits because ‘on average substantially longer’ establishes the cross-sectional increase, ‘growth over the interval was only modest’ limits how much individual growth can explain, and ‘smaller tagged fish were less likely to survive’ shows composition changed through selective loss, so the average rose mainly by removal. The restatement that late-summer fish average longer is true but ignores the tagged-fish and survival findings. The claim that tagged fish grew substantially contradicts the finding that growth was only modest. The claim that smaller fish grew especially rapidly has no support and conflicts with their lower survival and only modest growth overall.

The question asks for evidence that limited space, not urgency, drove abbreviation. The passage sets up competing savings in ‘saves both writing time and costly parchment’ and contrasts ‘urgent deadlines on large sheets’ with ‘without time pressure on small crowded sheets,’ claiming abbreviation was ‘mainly a response to limited writing space rather than to pressure to write quickly.’ The key holds urgency constant with ‘under the same deadline’ and finds more abbreviations on small sheets, isolating space. The fast-and-sparing choice shows only that abbreviation saves both resources, not why scribes used it. The urgent-on-large-sheets choice shows urgency matters when space is fixed, supporting the rival. The small-versus-large choice restates the correlation but lets urgency differ too, so motive stays confounded.

The question demands evidence that overall totals mislead because of unequal deployment across sources with different detectability. The text says detection ‘varied strongly by swab source’ and primers ‘were not used equally often,’ directing attention away from ‘overall totals alone.’ Primer X wins on canopy 27 of 30 at 90% versus 64 of 80 at 80% and on floor 30 of 60 at 50% versus 6 of 15 at 40%, yet X was used mostly on floor litter at 60 versus 30 while Y was used mostly on canopy at 80 versus 15, explaining why Y leads overall 70 versus 57 despite lower within-source rates. The overall-totals choice fails because it restates the misleading overall without addressing sources. The swapped-deployment choice fails because it reverses which primer favored which source. The greater-canopy-count choice fails because 64 versus 27 counts ignore denominators and the rate actually favors X.

The question asks for the word that captures why the copy is valued. The key fits because the text says the copy is ‘valued not for matching the original as an object but for letting players feel how its arrangement shapes phrasing and touch,’ after stating it ‘could never be mistaken for an antique’ and ‘sounds admittedly brighter.’ That logic demands a word meaning useful for access rather than exactness. Convincing fails because open documentation ensures it could never be mistaken. Faithful fails because brighter sound and modern materials contradict exact likeness, and the sentence explicitly demotes matching. Superior fails because admittedly brighter is a concession about difference, not evidence that the copy is better.

The question asks for the text’s overall logic. The text opens with a familiar inference of repetition as ‘a sign of faltering memory,’ then reports close observation that skilled narrators use phrases ‘most densely not when they hesitate but when they are advancing the plot confidently.’ It explains the mechanism with ‘to hold the audience’s attention while planning the next turn’ and recasts the device as ‘less lapses in recall than tools that free attention for invention,’ closing with scope under ‘the pressure of live telling.’ That matches presenting an inference, timing evidence against it, and redefinition as invention support. The attention-only choice keeps true detail but drops invention. The general-skill choice drops the live-performance limit. The timing-as-central choice reverses evidence and conclusion.

The question tests agreement between a plural subject and its verb across a long supplement. The subject is ‘The preparatory sketches,’ which is plural, while ‘each protected since the 1970s by a protective cover and an acid-free folder in the museum’s cool print room’ is a participial supplement that leaves the number unchanged. The surrounding present-tense verbs ‘remain’ and ‘approves’ require present tense, so the plural present ‘remain’ is correct despite the singular nouns ‘cover,’ ‘folder,’ and ‘room’ next to the blank. The form ‘remains’ fails because it is singular, attracted by ‘each’ and the nearby singular ‘room.’ The form ‘remained’ fails because it moves to past time the context does not support. The form ‘will remain’ fails because it moves to future time without a future signal.

The question tests subject-verb agreement in an inverted sentence. The verb precedes its subject, so it must agree with the postverbal head ‘the gift,’ singular, as confirmed by ‘currently’ requiring present tense and ‘its display’ marking the gift as singular. The key ‘stands’ is present singular. The plural phrases before the blank (‘storerooms,’ ‘crates,’ ‘bundles,’ ‘notes’) and after it (‘drums, rattles, and carved masks’) are objects of prepositions, not subjects. ‘stand’ is plural present and wrongly agrees with nearby plurals instead of ‘gift.’ ‘stood’ is past and contradicts ‘currently.’ ‘will stand’ is future and likewise contradicts ‘currently.’

The question demands evidence that Plant A’s agreement reduced inequality rather than simply raising all wages, quoting ‘rather than raising all grades together, thereby reducing inequality within that plant.’ The key meets this by giving both endpoints in both years: the lowest-paid grade rose from 38 to 58 cents while the highest-paid grade did not rise (78 to 76), so the gap narrowed from 40 to 18 cents. The choice citing only the 20-cent gain for Plant A’s lowest-paid grade versus 13 cents at Plant B shows faster growth at the bottom but says nothing about the top, so it cannot show a narrower gap. The choice citing 58 cents versus 52 cents in 1939 compares final levels without showing change or the top grades. The choice citing only the top grades slipping at Plant A while rising at Plant B omits the bottom-grade rise needed to show an egalitarian lift.

The question asks for the transition linking a second local case to a first under an explicit thesis of local adaptation. The key fits because the opening claims relief succeeded ‘not by imposing one national template but by letting local officials adapt’ and the final clause says the farming counties applied ‘the same flexible strategy through different tools,’ so the second case parallels the first in strategy despite different tactics. The phrase ‘For example,’ fails because the farming case does not illustrate the industrial work projects but illustrates the thesis alongside them. The word ‘Moreover,’ fails because it signals only an added detail and misses the stated sameness of strategy. The phrase ‘In contrast,’ fails because the text asserts shared logic, so tactical difference is expected variation rather than opposition.

The question demands the temporal-conditional status of resistance, not its metabolic price. The decisive contrast spans two cultures: resistant ‘quickly dominated’ when dosed, yet ‘the outcome reversed’ without drug because resistant cells ‘divided about 15% more slowly,’ capped by ‘only while the drug is present.’ That pattern is conditional persistence, not time decay, so ‘conditional’ fits. ‘lasting’ fails because advantage does not fade on its own; it endures whenever drug remains. ‘costly’ is true—resistance consumes resources—but answers cost, not when advantage holds. ‘insignificant’ fails because domination under dosing proves a large effect in that context.

The question demands data that prove Script A beats Script B within each gallery despite losing overall, because the curator claims Script A is more effective when each gallery is considered separately while conceding Script B leads averaged across all participants. The key meets this by giving within-gallery rates favoring Script A in both wings, 45 of 75 versus 8 of 16 and 22 of 25 versus 67 of 84, while acknowledging the reversal 75 of 100 versus 67 of 100 overall, the classic concentration effect. The statement pairing the overall Script B lead with higher modern-wing rates under either script is true but never compares scripts inside a gallery. The statement comparing raw counts of successful recalls mistakes heavier testing for higher rates. The statement pairing modern-versus-medieval rates with the overall lead answers where recall is higher, not which script is better.

The question demands illustration of three linked ideas: polite behavior, concealment, and a present tie to the city. The key meets all three because ‘nodded and thanked them without correcting them’ shows the polite surface, ‘never mentioning’ states concealment, and ‘each morning she still counted the buses leaving for the city’ states a repeated present attention to departure. The bedroom-and-return quotation reports a past eagerness to leave and a present move, not a hidden present attachment. The evenings-oiling quotation reports domestic routine without any tie to the city. The no-longer-boarding quotation states a limit on action without showing polite concealment of continued attention.

The question asks what condition limits the warming effect using both captive and wild results. The correct completion fits because captivity with “identical annually lengthening daylight” shows warmth “can accelerate preparation” while wild birds with “equal warming but breeding where spring days lengthen more slowly” show “almost no advance,” so warmth helps only after day length enables response. The cool-temperature completion fails because cool conditions produced later readiness in captivity, not enabled advance. The already-advanced-dates completion fails because it restates the observed trend rather than the gating condition that explains the geographic contrast. The southern-winter completion fails because overwinter habitat is never mentioned and cannot explain the controlled daylight difference.

The question asks for the text’s overall claim, not a supporting detail. The key fits because the text contrasts yields rising ‘before any enclosure act’ where holdings had been combined with ‘only modest gains for decades’ where they had not, then concludes enclosure mattered ‘less as a redrawing of boundaries than as an occasion for reorganizing tenancies.’ That combination makes prior consolidation the driver and enclosure secondary. The statement that enclosure raised yields by redrawing boundaries reverses that relation, crediting boundaries rather than tenancy change. The statement about modest gains in villages without consolidation is true but narrow, reporting one piece of evidence rather than the general revision. The statement that large farms were widespread and enclosure had little effect anywhere overgeneralizes ‘several’ parishes into everywhere and ignores that enclosure could still matter as an occasion for reorganization.

The question requires the verb to agree with the postverbal subject and match the surrounding present tense in an inverted sentence. The key correctly pairs singular present with a handwritten record, the true subject after the blank, and fits the present frame preserves, expect, and never lists, with fronted participles Tucked and mixed leaving the verb before its subject. Nearby plurals notes and inks cannot decide agreement. The present plural form fails because it pairs a plural verb with the singular record. The past plural form fails for both number and tense in this present-tense description. The singular past form matches number but breaks the present-tense sequence without any past-time signal.

The goal requires naming different chemicals plus evidence of different reliance to show shared survival hides different mechanisms. The key meets it by contrasting ‘rely mainly on glucose’ with ‘rely mainly on urea’ and citing ‘depleting urea eliminated tolerance in southern frogs but barely affected northern frogs,’ together with ‘large amounts of glucose’ versus ‘only slightly’ to show divergent chemistry. The statement that both populations survive freezing fails because it restates the shared outcome without addressing compounds. The long glucose contrast noting large release versus slight rise fails because it omits urea and the depletion test, so it never identifies the southern alternative. The swapped-compound claim fails because it contradicts the notes that northern frogs release glucose and southern frogs accumulate urea.

The question asks what the underlined sentence does in the whole, which requires the next sentence. The sentence reframes gaps as ‘less like failures than economies’ only under a condition stated as ‘Read alongside the choreographers’ rehearsal letters,’ with evidence that patterns were ‘drilled separately and thus needed no written reminder.’ The close then limits judgment with ‘cannot be judged complete or defective on its own’ and ‘only when set against the division of rehearsal labor.’ So the sentence supplies the context that makes silence look intentional. The choice about what letters reveal restates evidence without the reframing. The choice about foot positions restates earlier description, not the underlined move. The choice about replacement turns alongside into substitution, contradicting on its own and only when set against.

The question asks for the move from a failed persuasive tactic to a different coercive tactic after explicit noncompliance. The key fits because reformers ‘initially sought’ improvement through ‘publishing investigations’ on the assumption that ‘public exposure would compel improvements,’ managers ‘largely ignored’ that exposure, and the next sentence imposes costs ‘whether or not a firm’s reputation suffered,’ directly replacing reputation with legal liability as the mechanism. That is substitution, not persistence. The word ‘Nevertheless,’ fails because reformers do not continue shaming despite being ignored but abandon it for compulsion. The word ‘Moreover,’ fails because compulsory laws are not an extra publicity effort but a new incentive structure. The word ‘Similarly,’ fails because the two approaches work through opposed logics rather than the same method.

The grammatical subject is the long noun phrase ‘Researchers studying reef recovery ... over five seasons’ and its verb is ‘found that colonies ... regrew tissue,’ with the participles ‘studying’ and ‘exposed’ providing no finite verb before the blank. The key supplies ‘seasons found’ with no punctuation, correctly joining that distant subject directly to its verb. The single-comma version illegally inserts one comma between subject and verb. The period version strands ‘Researchers studying ... seasons’ as a participial fragment and leaves ‘found that colonies ...’ without a subject. The semicolon version creates the same pair of fragments because a semicolon cannot rescue a subject without a verb.

The blank asks how well a single antibody reading captures lasting protection. Early ‘higher titers predicting fewer infections’ shows some signal, but ‘titers had waned markedly while protection remained high’ via ‘memory immune cells,’ glossed as ‘useful for a snapshot, but blind to the reserve defense.’ That is incomplete, not wrong, so ‘partial’ is precise. ‘fleeting’ describes titers themselves, not their function as indicators, and misses the lasting reserve. ‘faulty’ fails because early prediction succeeded, proving readings are not generally wrong. ‘irrelevant’ fails more strongly because early correlation plus on-demand production preserves a real link to immunity.