SAT Reading & Writing: Hard Command of Evidence (Drill 13)

Question 1. Which choice best describes data from the graph that support the hydrologists' conclusion?

• A) Starting from nearly the same shallow depth at the river, the clay aquifer's water table dropped far more steeply with distance than the sandy one's. ✓
• B) At the river's edge, both aquifers had their water table only about two meters below the surface.
• C) The clay aquifer's water table reached its greatest measured depth at the point farthest from the river.
• D) The sandy aquifer's water table lay closer to the surface than the clay aquifer's at every single distance measured past the river, all the way out to the farthest point shown.

Explanation: Choice A is the best answer because the conclusion contrasts how steeply each water table falls away from the river, which requires comparing the two slopes from a shared start. The graph shows both tables near two meters deep at the river, after which the clay aquifer plunges to about twenty-six meters by five hundred meters out while the sandy one reaches only about seven, the far steeper clay slope the claim describes. Choice B is wrong because the equal shallow depth at the river is the shared starting point that makes the comparison fair, but by itself it shows no difference in how the tables behave with distance. Choice C is wrong because the clay table being deepest at the farthest point is a single endpoint and does not compare the two slopes. Choice D is wrong because the sandy table lying shallower at every distance is true from the graph but states which aquifer is deeper rather than how much more steeply the clay one drops away.

Question 2. Which finding, if true, would most support the recruitment explanation over the chance one?

• A) Ant colonies that discover more food sources tend to grow larger over the following season.
• B) The food source the ants discovered was the richest of several different sources that researchers had placed at various points around the colony's usual foraging area before the trial.
• C) When the chemical trail an ant laid back to the nest was wiped away, almost no further nestmates reached the food. ✓
• D) Foraging ants are capable of detecting a food source from a short distance using their sense of smell.

Explanation: Choice C is the best answer because the rival explanation is that ants find the food independently, so the deciding evidence is what happens when recruitment is blocked. Wiping away the trail and seeing almost no further ants arrive shows the others were following that trail rather than locating the food on their own, which is the recruitment mechanism proposed. Choice A is wrong because colonies that find more food growing larger links foraging to colony size but does not test how the extra ants reached this food. Choice B is wrong because the food being the richest nearby explains why it drew ants but not whether they were recruited or arrived by chance. Choice D is wrong because ants smelling food from a short distance describes a general ability and, if anything, fits the chance explanation rather than recruitment.

Question 3. If the researchers' proposal is correct, which result would they most expect to see?

• A) People who slept and people who stayed awake recalled about the same amount when tested after the interval.
• B) People tested after an interval that included a full night's sleep recalled more than those tested after an equally long interval spent awake. ✓
• C) People who slept reported feeling more rested at the time of the test than people who had stayed awake.
• D) People recalled more of the material the longer the total interval before the test ran, whether or not any part of that interval happened to include a stretch of sleep.

Explanation: Choice B is the best answer because the proposal is that sleep itself strengthens new memories, so the predicted result is better recall after an interval that included sleep than after an equally long waking interval. Higher recall in the sleep group, with the interval length matched, is exactly what the idea forecasts. Choice A is wrong because equal recall in the two groups is the result expected if sleep does not help, the opposite of what the proposal predicts. Choice C is wrong because feeling more rested reports how the sleepers felt rather than whether sleep improved how much they remembered. Choice D is wrong because more recall with a longer interval regardless of sleep would point to time rather than sleep as the factor, which is not what the proposal predicts.

Question 4. Which choice most effectively uses data from the table to support the scientists' conclusion?

• A) Browning was lower with added acid than without it in both the low-sugar and the high-sugar column.
• B) The highest browning score in the table, fifty-two, occurred with high sugar and no added acid.
• C) Within the high-sugar condition alone, the batter scored fifty-two with no acid added as against only thirty-four once acid was added, a clear and sizable gap within that one column.
• D) Adding acid cut the browning score by eighteen points under high sugar, from fifty-two to thirty-four, but by only four points under low sugar. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is the best answer because the conclusion is that acid restrains browning more when sugar is plentiful, which requires comparing the acid effect at each sugar level. Adding acid removes eighteen points of browning under high sugar but only four under low, so the acid does far more work when sugar is high, exactly the joint effect claimed. Choice A is wrong because less browning with acid in both columns is a main effect of acid and never compares the two acid effects, so it does not show the interaction. Choice B is wrong because the single highest cell does not involve comparing how much acid removes at each sugar level. Choice C is wrong because comparing the two high-sugar cells alone shows acid lowers browning when sugar is high but not that it does so more than under low sugar, which needs the low column too.

Question 5. Which finding, if true, would most directly weaken the company's proposal?

• A) The cushioned shoes are noticeably more expensive than the standard shoes the other runners wore.
• B) Runners generally say the heavily cushioned shoes feel more comfortable on long runs than the standard shoes do, especially over the closing miles of a long outing.
• C) Once weekly mileage was matched between the groups, runners in the cushioned shoes were injured just as often as those in standard shoes. ✓
• D) A few runners in the standard shoes also avoided injury across the whole season.

Explanation: Choice C is the best answer because the proposal credits the cushioning for the lower injury rate, so matching weekly mileage between the groups and then seeing equal injuries shows the cushioning is not what made the difference. With distance held constant the advantage disappears, pointing to how much the runners ran rather than the shoe. Choice A is wrong because the shoes costing more is a side detail that does not test whether the cushioning prevents injuries. Choice B is wrong because the shoes feeling more comfortable reports a sensation and does not show the cushioning lowers injuries once mileage is accounted for. Choice D is wrong because a few uninjured runners in standard shoes is consistent with cushioning still helping overall, so it does not weaken the proposal.