Free Sample PSAT Reading & Writing

Choice "Attempts to roast green chiles using 50 heliostats yields results in fewer than six minutes." is the best answer. Armijo believes that using more heliostats will speed up the roasting process, and this finding shows that with 50 heliostats—more than the number of heliostats already used—the roasting time is indeed reduced.

Choice "The temperature inside the roasting drum is distributed more evenly when roasting green chiles with solar power than with propane." is incorrect. The evenness of temperature in the roasting drum doesn’t tell us about the speed of the roasting process, which is what Armijo’s hypothesis is concerned with.

Choice "Green chile connoisseurs prefer the flavor of solar-roasted green chiles over the flavor of propane-roasted green chiles." is incorrect. Armijo’s hypothesis is focused on the speed of the roasting process, not the flavor of the resulting roasted chiles.

Choice "The skins of solar-roasted green chiles are easier to peel than the skins of propane-roasted green chiles." is incorrect. Though Armijo’s hypothesis mentions a benefit of solar-roasting green chiles (easier peeling), it doesn’t address the speed of the roasting process.

Choice "164 million years old" is the best answer because it gives the age for the fossil discovered by Wang and colleagues that is directly supported by the text. According to the text, Xin Wang and colleagues discovered a 164-million-year-old plant fossil. This plant fossil included a flower bud, which the researchers believe provides evidence that flowering plants emerged in the Jurassic period, which falls between 145 million and 201 million years ago.

Choice "150 million years old" is incorrect because the text states that Wang and colleagues discovered a 164-million year-old flowering plant fossil in China, not one that is 150 million years old. Although 150 million years ago would fall within the Jurassic period, according to the text it isn’t the age of the discovered fossil.

Choice "145 million years old" is incorrect because the text states that Wang and colleagues discovered a 164-million-year-old flowering plant fossil in China, not one that is 145 million years old. Although 145 million years ago would fall at the end of the Jurassic period, according to the text it isn’t the age of the discovered fossil.

Choice "201 million years old" is incorrect because the text states that Wang and colleagues discovered a 164-million-year-old flowering plant fossil in China, not one that is 201 million years old. Although 201 million years ago would fall at the beginning of the Jurassic period, according to the text it isn’t the age of the discovered fossil.

Choice "help judges improve the arguments they put forward in their judicial opinions." is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of Anita Allen’s argument about judges citing philosophers in their judicial opinions. The text indicates that judges sometimes cite philosophers when writing their judicial opinions and that, according to Allen, judges tend to cite philosophers whose views are in agreement with those of the judges themselves. Allen claims, however, that the best judicial opinions consider potential objections and rebut them, which suggests that judges may be able to strengthen their opinions by including discussions of philosophers with views
contrary to their own.

Choice "allow judges to craft judicial opinions without needing to consult philosophical works." is incorrect because Allen’s claim is that judges could improve their judicial opinions by citing philosophers who disagree with the views expressed in the opinions, which would necessarily require judges to consult philosophical works.

Choice "make judicial opinions more comprehensible to readers without legal or philosophical training." is incorrect because there’s no discussion in the text about making judicial opinions more easily understood by any particular group of readers. The focus of the text is on Allen’s claim that judicial opinions could be strengthened by the inclusion of discussions of philosophers whose views disagree with those of the judges authoring the opinions.

Choice "bring judicial opinions in line with views that are broadly held among philosophers." is incorrect because the text presents Allen’s argument that discussing philosophers whose views judges disagree with could strengthen judicial opinions, not that doing so could bring those opinions into line with views that are popular among philosophers.

Choice "By suggesting that curiosity may not be exclusively motivated by the desire to merely acquire information" is the best answer. The researchers in Text 2 recognize that acquiring information is a powerful motivator, but showed that this motivation can still be affected by other factors, like whether or not the information is expected to be useful or not. This suggests that other desires may play a part in driving people to acquire information.

Choice "By conceding that people may seek out information that serves no immediate purpose only because they think they can use it later" is incorrect. The consensus view in Text 1 is that people acquire information regardless of whether they think they can use it later. Dubey and colleagues acknowledge this fact (so they don’t claim people seek out information “only” because it might be useful later).

Choice "By pointing out that it is challenging to determine when information-seeking serves no goal beyond acquiring information" is incorrect. This choice misreads the results of Dubey and colleagues’ study in Text 2. Neither text discusses the difficulty of determining the motivation for information-seeking.

Choice "By disputing the idea that curiosity can help explain apparently purposeless information-seeking behaviors" is incorrect. This choice contradicts Text 2, which starts with Dubey and colleagues “acknowledging that acquiring information is a powerful motivator” (i.e., agreeing that curiosity explains the seeking of apparently purposeless information). The research in Text 2 simply suggests that more than just curiosity can motivate information-seeking behavior when the information has a purpose.

Choice "The text describes a general situation, then illustrates that situation with specific examples." is the best answer. The first three sentences describe the general situation: these early films have been lost, and we only know about them from small pieces of evidence. The rest of the text offers specific examples of the small pieces of evidence.

Choice "The text identifies a complex problem, then presents examples of unsuccessful attempts to solve that problem. " is incorrect. This isn’t the overall structure. The fact that we only know about these lost early films from small pieces of evidence isn’t presented as a “complex problem”—that’s too extreme. And the examples presented are not “unsuccessful attempts” to solve it. If anything, the examples represent a success, because we discovered that these films existed in the first place.

Choice "The text summarizes a debate among researchers, then gives reasons for supporting one side in that debate." is incorrect. This isn’t the overall structure. There’s no “debate” presented in the text, so there’s no “side” for the text to support.

Choice "The text discusses several notable individuals, then explains commonly overlooked differences between those individuals. " is incorrect. This isn’t the overall structure. The text doesn’t discuss any “differences” between the filmmakers.

Choice "transcending" is the best answer. Based on the text, we’re looking for a word that means something similar to "mak[ing] use of insights and techniques from all those fields." "Transcending" means "going beyond," so "transcending traditional boundaries" would mean crossing into all those various fields of research, which is exactly the meaning we want.

Choice "epitomizing" is incorrect. This isn’t a logical word choice. Based on the text, we’re looking for a word that means something similar to "mak[ing] use of insights and techniques from all those fields." To "epitomize" means to "be a perfect example of," so "epitomizing traditional boundaries" would mean the opposite of what we want: keeping the fields of research separate.

Choice "anticipating" is incorrect. This isn’t a logical word choice. Based on the text, we’re looking for a word that means something similar to "mak[ing] use of insights and techniques from all those fields." "Anticipating" means "expecting" or "waiting for," and would result in a confusing sentence with an unclear meaning.

Choice "reinforcing" is incorrect. This isn’t a logical word choice. Based on the text, we’re looking for a word that means something similar to "mak[ing] use of insights and techniques from all those fields." "Reinforcing traditional boundaries" would mean the opposite: keeping the fields of research separate.

Choice "Bharati Mukherjee’s novel The Holder of the World centers around two women, one living in twentieth-century United States and the other in seventeenth-century India." is the best answer. The sentence effectively introduces The Holder of the World to an audience already familiar with Mukherjee, explaining that the novel centers around two women and mentioning the author without providing any other identifying information.

Choice "Bharati Mukherjee’s settings include both twentieth-century United States and seventeenth-century India." is incorrect. The sentence provides a detail about Mukherjee’s settings; it doesn’t introduce, or even mention, the novel.

Choice "In addition to her novel The Holder of the World, which was published in 1993, Indian-born author Bharati Mukherjee wrote other novels and short stories." is incorrect. The sentence provides introductory information about Mukherjee; it doesn’t effectively introduce her novel to an audience already familiar with the author.

Choice "The Holder of the World was not the only novel written by Indian-born author Bharati Mukherjee." is incorrect. The sentence provides introductory information about Mukherjee; it doesn’t effectively introduce her novel to an audience already familiar with the author.

Choice "For example," is the best answer. “For example” logically signals that the Siletz beeswax stories mentioned in this sentence are examples consistent with the previous claim that Siletz stories support the shipwreck theory.

Choice "For this reason," is incorrect because “for this reason” illogically signals that the Siletz stories about the beeswax were caused by the previous claim that Siletz stories support the shipwreck theory. Instead, the beeswax stories are examples consistent with the claim.

Choice "However," is incorrect because “however” illogically signals that the Siletz stories about the beeswax contrast with the previous claim that Siletz stories support the shipwreck theory. Instead, the beeswax stories are examples consistent with the claim.

Choice "Likewise," is incorrect because “likewise” illogically signals that the Siletz stories about the beeswax are similar to the previous claim that Siletz stories support the shipwreck theory. Instead, the beeswax stories are examples consistent with the claim.

Choice "Springs—to" is the best answer. The convention being tested is the punctuation of a supplementary element within a sentence. The dash after “Springs” pairs with the dash after “earth” to separate the supplementary element “in this case, the porous rocks of the hills around Hot Springs” from the rest of the sentence.

Choice "Springs to" is incorrect because it fails to use appropriate punctuation to separate the supplementary element from the rest of the sentence.

Choice "Springs: to" is incorrect because a colon can’t be paired with a dash in this way to separate the supplementary element from the rest of the sentence.

Choice "Springs, to" is incorrect because a comma can’t be paired with a dash in this way to separate the supplementary element from the rest of the sentence.

Choice "poems putatively written by the novel’s" is the best answer. Nothing belongs to the “poems” in the sentence, so it should not be possessive—just a simple plural noun. The protagonist does belong to the novel—it’s the protagonist of the novel—so “novel” needs to be a singular possessive noun.

Choice "poem’s putatively written by the novel’s" is incorrect. This doesn’t complete the text in a way that conforms to the conventions of Standard English. This choice uses the singular possessive “poem’s,” but the text indicates that it should be the simple plural “poems”: there is more than one poem, and nothing belongs to the poems.

Choice "poem’s putatively written by the novels’" is incorrect. This doesn’t complete the text in a way that conforms to the conventions of Standard English. This choice uses the singular possessive “poem’s,” but the text indicates that it should be the simple plural “poems”: there is more than one poem, and nothing belongs to the poems. This choice also uses the plural possessive  “novels’,” which is incorrect because there is only one novel.

Choice "poems putatively written by the novels’" is incorrect. This doesn’t complete the text in a way that conforms to the conventions of Standard English. This choice uses the plural possessive “novels’,” which is incorrect because there is only one novel, so it should be the singular possessive “novel’s.” .