PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 1
Difficulty Level: EASY (1 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
Composer Bernard Rands appears to be indefatigable, able to function well with only four hours of ------- .
(A) performance
(B) practice
(C) sleep
(D) exercise
(E) exhaustion
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. The structure of the sentence indicates that the second part of the sentence relates to Rands’ being
“indefatigable,” or tireless or incapable of being fatigued. If Rands can “function well” on very little “sleep”—“ only four
hours”—he certainly would seem to be incapable of being fatigued.
Choice (A) is incorrect. The structure of the sentence indicates that the second part of the sentence relates to Rands’ being
“indefatigable,” or tireless or incapable of being fatigued. It does not make sense to say that Rands seems to be tireless
because he can make do with very little “performance” time, or time spent performing (his works, presumably). Rather, it
makes sense to say that he appears indefatigable because he functions on very little sleep .
Choice (B) is incorrect. The structure of the sentence indicates that the second part of the sentence relates to Rands’ being
“indefatigable,” or tireless or incapable of being fatigued. It does not make sense to imply that Rands seems to be tireless
because he can make do with very little “practice” time, or time spent practicing (his works, presumably). Rather, it makes
sense to say that he appears indefatigable because he functions on very little sleep .
Choice (D) is incorrect. The structure of the sentence indicates that the second part of the sentence relates to Rands’ being
“indefatigable,” or tireless or incapable of being fatigued. It does not make sense to imply that Rands seems tireless
because he can make do with very little “exercise” time; further, four hours might be considered a lot of time to spend
exercising. It makes more sense to say that Rands appears indefatigable because he functions on very little sleep .
Choice (E) is incorrect. The structure of the sentence indicates that the second part of the sentence relates to Rands’ being
“indefatigable,” or tireless or incapable of being fatigued. It does not make sense to say that Rands seems tireless because
he spends “only four hours” being “exhausted.” In fact, if Rands appears incapable of being fatigued, he would never
seem to be exhausted.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 1
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 2
Difficulty Level: EASY (1 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
The Dutts are wonderfully ------- , always acting ------- to promote the well-being of others.
(A) dedicated . . feebly
(B) menacing . . promptly
(C) generous . . unselfishly
(D) cautious . . powerfully
(E) courteous . . cruelly
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. “Generous” means willing to give or share freely. To be unselfish is to be generous and not selfish.
The structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the sentence after the comma elaborates on or explains the first part.
If the Dutts always act “unselfishly,” or generously, they certainly would be described as “wonderfully generous.”
Choice (A) is incorrect. In this context, “dedicated” means committed to a cause. “Feebly” means weakly or without
strength. The structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the sentence after the comma elaborates on or explains the
first part. If the Dutts are weak in their efforts “to promote the well-being of others,” it is very unlikely that they would be
described as “wonderfully dedicated.” People who are very dedicated to a cause probably would act vigorously to
promote that cause.
Choice (B) is incorrect. “Menacing” means threatening. “Promptly” means readily or quickly. The structure of the
sentence indicates that the part of the sentence after the comma elaborates on or explains the first part. The term
“promptly” might fit the second blank; the Dutts might act quickly “to promote the well-being of others.” However, there
is no reason to suggest that people who work to promote others’ well-being would be described as “wonderfully
menacing,” or very threatening.
Choice (D) is incorrect. “Cautious” means careful and tentative. “Powerfully” means with great power or influence. The
structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the sentence after the comma elaborates on or explains the first part. The
term “powerfully” might fit the second blank; the Dutts might be influential and might use their influence to help others.
However, it is unlikely that people who act powerfully would be described as “wonderfully cautious,” or very careful and
tentative.
Choice (E) is incorrect. “Courteous” means kindly or well-mannered. To be cruel is to inflict pain or suffering. The
structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the sentence after the comma elaborates on or explains the first part. The
Dutts could be “wonderfully courteous,” or very kindly. However, kindly people certainly would not act “cruelly to
promote the well-being of others.” Indeed, it is illogical to suggest that people would inflict pain or suffering to help
others.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 2
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 3
Difficulty Level: EASY (2 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
While the new legislative initiative is hailed by its ------- as a bold solution to a pressing problem, its ------- argue that it
will produce no meaningful results.
(A) supporters . . critics
(B) advocates . . proponents
(C) detractors . . antagonists
(D) adversaries . . observers
(E) auditors . . creditors
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. “Supporters” are people who support or adhere to something. In this context, “critics” are people
who harshly judge something. The sentence sets up a contrast: some people hail, or enthusiastically approve of, “the new
legislative initiative” because they think it will solve a problem, while other people “argue that it” will not be effective in
a meaningful way. The terms “supporters” and “critics” logically complete the sentence because people who support the
initiative would be expected to approve of it and people who harshly judge the initiative would be expected to argue
against it.
Choice (B) is incorrect. “Advocates” are people that support or promote something. “Proponents” are people who argue in
favor of it. The sentence sets up a contrast: some people hail, or enthusiastically approve of, “the new legislative
initiative” because they think it will solve a problem, while other people “argue that it” will not be effective in a
meaningful way. The terms “advocates” and “proponents” do not support the necessary contrast because both terms
describe people who are in favor of something. Further, proponents of the initiative—people who are in favor of the
initiative—certainly would not argue that the initiative “will produce no meaningful results.”
Choice (C) is incorrect. “Detractors” are people who belittle or speak ill of something. “Antagonists” are people who
oppose something. The sentence sets up a contrast: some people hail, or enthusiastically approve of, “the new legislative
initiative” because they think it will solve a problem, while other people “argue that it” will not be effective in a
meaningful way. The terms “detractors” and “antagonists” do not support the necessary contrast because both terms
describe people who are against something. Further, detractors of the initiative certainly would not enthusiastically
approve of it.
Choice (D) is incorrect. “Adversaries” are people who oppose or resist something. “Observers” are people who watch but
do not participate in something. The sentence sets up a contrast: some people hail, or enthusiastically approve of, “the new
legislative initiative” because they think it will solve a problem, while other people “argue that it” will not be effective in
a meaningful way. The terms “adversaries” and “observers” do not support the necessary contrast; observers might oppose
the new initiative even if they do not participate in resisting it or preventing it. Further, adversaries of the initiative
certainly would not enthusiastically approve of it.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In this context, “auditors” are listeners or observers. “Creditors” are people to whom a debt is
owed. The sentence sets up a contrast: some people hail, or enthusiastically approve of, “the new legislative initiative”
because they think it will solve a problem, while other people “argue that it” will not be effective in a meaningful way.
The terms “auditors” and “creditors” do not support the necessary contrast; indeed, there is no direct connection between
listeners and people to whom a debt is owed. Further, because the sentence does not indicate what the initiative has to do
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 3
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
with, there is no reason to assume that auditors would approve of it and creditors would disapprove of it.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 4
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 4
Difficulty Level: EASY (1 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
Dr. David Ho was named Time magazine’s Man of the Year in ------- of his ------- work with innovative drug
therapies that gave hope to many patients.
(A) recognition . . groundbreaking
(B) defense . . pivotal
(C) appreciation . . naïve
(D) protection . . monumental
(E) acknowledgment . . intangible
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. In this context, “recognition” is formal acknowledgement. “Groundbreaking” means markedly
innovative. The sentence indicates that Dr. Ho was honored by Time magazine and that he worked with “innovative drug
therapies.” To be named “Man of the Year” is to receive formal acknowledgement of one’s achievements, so the term
“recognition” fits the first blank. And because Dr. Ho worked with innovative theories, it makes sense to describe his
work as groundbreaking.
Choice (B) is incorrect. The sentence indicates that Dr. Ho was honored by Time magazine and that he worked with
“innovative drug therapies.” There is no reason to suggest that the work of a doctor whose “innovative drug therapies”
have been “pivotal,” or vitally important, and given “hope to many patients” would need to be defended from anything.
Further, it is not clear how Time magazine would be offering a “defense” for Dr. Ho’s work by naming Dr. Ho “Man of
the Year.”
Choice (C) is incorrect. “Appreciation” is admiration, approval, or gratitude. “Naïve” means simplistic or uninformed.
The sentence indicates that Dr. Ho was honored by Time magazine and that he worked with “innovative drug therapies.”
The title “Man of the Year” is often given as a sign of admiration and approval, so the term “appreciation” might fit the
first blank. However, the term “naïve” does not logically complete the sentence. It is unlikely that a doctor would receive
an honor in appreciation of simplistic or uninformed scientific work.
Choice (D) is incorrect. The sentence indicates that Dr. Ho was honored by Time magazine and that he worked with
“innovative drug therapies.” There is no reason to suggest that the work of a doctor whose “innovative drug therapies”
have been “monumental,” or of outstanding significance, would need to be protected from anything. Further, it is not clear
how Time magazine would be offering “protection” for Dr. Ho’s work by naming Dr. Ho “Man of the Year.”
Choice (E) is incorrect. In this context, “acknowledgement” is recognition of an act or achievement. “Intangible” means
imperceptible or lacking substance. The sentence indicates that Dr. Ho was honored by Time magazine and that he
worked with “innovative drug therapies.” To be named “Man of the Year” is to be recognized for one’s achievements, so
the term “acknowledgment” fits the first blank. However, the term “intangible” does not logically complete the sentence.
It is unlikely that a doctor would receive an honor in recognition of work that lacks substance or has not made a
perceptible difference.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 5
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 5
Difficulty Level: EASY (3 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
Because their behavior was ------- , Frank and Susan served as ------- models for the children under their excellent care.
(A) incorruptible . . pernicious
(B) lamentable . . flawed
(C) commendable . . exemplary
(D) erratic . . unimpeachable
(E) reputable . . imperfect
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. “Commendable” means worthy of confidence or notice. To be an “exemplary” model is to be
deserving of imitation or to serve as a pattern. The sentence makes it clear that “Frank and Susan served as” a certain type
of model as a result of “their behavior.” Because Frank and Susan provided “excellent care” for the children, it makes
sense to say that “their behavior was commendable.” Further, people who behave commendably likely would be
considered “exemplary models” for others—that is, they would be seen as people whose behavior should be imitated.
Choice (A) is incorrect. “Incorruptible” means highly moral and incapable of being corrupted. “Pernicious” means highly
destructive or even deadly. The sentence makes it clear that “Frank and Susan served as” a certain type of model as a
result of “their behavior.” Frank and Susan might behave in a highly moral way, so the term “incorruptible” might fit the
first blank. However, the term “pernicious” does not logically complete the sentence. It is illogical to suggest that highly
moral people who provided “excellent care” for children would be described as dangerous or deadly models.
Choice (B) is incorrect. “Lamentable” means deplorable or deserving contempt. “Flawed” means imperfect or weak. The
sentence makes it clear that “Frank and Susan served as” a certain type of model as a result of “their behavior.” People
who behave in a deplorable way likely would be considered imperfect models for children. However, the sentence
indicates that Frank and Susan took “excellent care” of the children; therefore, it is illogical to suggest that Frank and
Susan’s behavior was lamentable and that Frank and Susan were flawed models.
Choice (D) is incorrect. “Erratic” means inconsistent and unpredictable. “Unimpeachable” means reliable beyond a doubt.
The sentence makes it clear that “Frank and Susan served as” a certain type of model as a result of “their behavior.” It is
illogical to suggest that Frank and Susan would be considered “unimpeachable models” for the children as a result of
behaving inconsistently and unpredictably; people who behave erratically would not be considered reliable beyond a
doubt.
Choice (E) is incorrect. “Reputable” means of good reputation or held in esteem. “Imperfect” means not perfect or even
defective. The sentence makes it clear that “Frank and Susan served as” a certain type of model as a result of “their
behavior.” Frank and Susan might have a good reputation because of their behavior—especially if they took “excellent
care” of the children—so the term “reputable” might fit the first blank. However, the term “imperfect” does not logically
complete the sentence. If Frank and Susan are reputable and have taken very good care of the children, there is no reason
to suggest that they would be imperfect or defective models.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 6
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 6
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (5 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
George Eliot’s fiction demonstrated ------- ethical inquiry, undermining superficial positions in the quest for moral truth.
(A) facile
(B) affected
(C) inadequate
(D) profound
(E) impulsive
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. In this context, “profound” means having intellectual depth. The structure of the sentence indicates
that the part of the sentence after the comma comments on the first part. Because Eliot is described as “undermining
superficial positions in the quest for moral truth,” it makes sense to say that “Eliot’s fiction demonstrated profound ethical
inquiry.” In other words, Eliot’s fiction contained intellectually deep examination that undercut superficial, or shallow,
points.
Choice (A) is incorrect. “Facile” means shallow or simplistic. The structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the
sentence after the comma comments on the first part. Because Eliot is described as “ undermining superficial
positions”—that is, undercutting or weakening superficial or shallow points—it does not make sense to say that “Eliot’s
fiction demonstrated facile ethical inquiry,” or contained shallow or simplistic examinations.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In this context, “affected” means feigned or false. The structure of the sentence indicates that the
part of the sentence after the comma comments on the first part. It does not make much sense to say that “Eliot’s fiction
demonstrated affected ethical inquiry” because it “undermine[d] superficial positions in the quest for moral truth.” Work
that successfully undermined, or undercut, shallow points would likely involve genuine questions. Further, it is not clear
how Eliot could have “affected ethical inquiry,” or somehow only pretended to examine ethical issues.
Choice (C) is incorrect. “Inadequate” means insufficient. The structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the
sentence after the comma comments on the first part. It does not make much sense to say that “Eliot’s fiction
demonstrated inadequate ethical inquiry” because it “undermine[d] superficial positions in the quest for moral truth.”
Work that successfully undermined, or undercut, shallow points would likely involve rigorous examination of ethical
issues, not inadequate or insufficient examination.
Choice (E) is incorrect. “Impulsive” means hasty and without forethought. The structure of the sentence indicates that the
part of the sentence after the comma comments on the first part. It does not make much sense to say that “Eliot’s fiction
demonstrated impulsive ethical inquiry” because it “undermine[d] superficial positions in the quest for moral truth.” Work
that successfully undermined, or undercut, shallow points would likely involve thoughtful and rigorous examination of
ethical issues, not hastily conceived examination that is not thought out.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 7
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 7
Difficulty Level: HARD (7 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
Moving from the security of the village to the excitement of the city gave Esmerelda conflicting feelings of ------- and ------ .
(A) boredom . . impassivity
(B) eagerness . . optimism
(C) satisfaction . . delight
(D) foreboding . . elation
(E) subjugation . . anger
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. The terms that fit the blanks must describe Esmerelda’s “conflicting feelings”; therefore, the terms
that fit the blank must conflict with one another. The term “foreboding” refers to a feeling that evil or trouble is
approaching; the term “elation” refers to intense joy. These terms do conflict with one another. Further, it makes sense to
say that Esmerelda felt troubled about leaving “the security of the village” but also joyful about moving to a city full of
“excitement.”
Choice (A) is incorrect. The terms that fit the blanks must describe Esmerelda’s “conflicting feelings”; therefore, the
terms that fit the blank must conflict with one another. The term “boredom” refers to feeling weary and disinterested; the
term “impassivity” refers to feeling no emotion. These terms do not logically complete the sentence because they do not
necessarily conflict with one another; in fact, boredom and impassivity are somewhat synonymous. Further, it is unlikely
that Esmerelda would have felt bored as a result of moving “to the excitement of the city.”
Choice (B) is incorrect. The terms that fit the blanks must describe Esmerelda’s “conflicting feelings”; therefore, the terms
that fit the blank must conflict with one another. The term “eagerness” refers to enthusiastic interest; the term “optimism”
refers to a tendency to expect the best possible outcome. These terms do not logically complete the sentence because they
do not necessarily conflict with one another; indeed, someone who is eager might also be optimistic.
Choice (C) is incorrect. The terms that fit the blanks must describe Esmerelda’s “conflicting feelings”; therefore, the terms
that fit the blank must conflict with one another. The term “satisfaction” refers to a feeling of fulfillment and contentment;
the term “delight” refers to great satisfaction or joy. These terms do not logically complete the sentence because they do
not conflict with one another; in fact, they describe different levels of the same feeling.
Choice (E) is incorrect. The terms that fit the blanks must describe Esmerelda’s “conflicting feelings”; therefore, the terms
that fit the blank must conflict with one another. The term “subjugation” refers to feeling controlled or conquered; the
term “anger” refers to strong displeasure. These terms do not logically complete the sentence because they do not
necessarily conflict with one another; indeed, someone who feels conquered might also feel angry.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 8
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 8
Difficulty Level: HARD (7 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
She possessed a remarkably ------- disposition: what others would perceive as calamities she shrugged off as minor
annoyances.
(A) enigmatic
(B) placid
(C) humane
(D) diffident
(E) ingenuous
Answer Explanation:
Choice (B) is correct. “Placid” means calm and serene. The structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the sentence
following the colon will modify or elaborate on the first part. The idea that the woman “shrugged off,” or minimized and
ignored, things that others would consider “calamities,” or disasters, elaborates on the idea that the woman “possessed a
remarkably placid disposition,” or tended to be very calm and serene.
Choice (A) is incorrect. “Enigmatic” means mysterious. The structure of the sentence indicates that the part of the
sentence following the colon will modify or elaborate on the first part. The idea that the woman “shrugged off,” or
minimized and ignored, things that others would consider disasters does not elaborate on the idea that the woman
“possessed a remarkably enigmatic disposition.” There is no direct connection between ignoring certain things and being
mysterious.
Choice (C) is incorrect. “Humane” means compassionate and sympathetic. The structure of the sentence indicates that the
part of the sentence following the colon will modify or elaborate on the first part. The idea that the woman “shrugged off,”
or minimized and ignored, things that others would consider disasters does not elaborate on the idea that the woman
“possessed a remarkably humane disposition.” Someone who is compassionate might ignore certain things, but there is
no direct connection between shrugging things off and being humane.
Choice (D) is incorrect. “Diffident” means hesitant and lacking self-confidence. The structure of the sentence indicates
that the part of the sentence following the colon will modify or elaborate on the first part. The idea that the woman
“shrugged off,” or minimized and ignored, things that others would consider disasters does not elaborate on the idea that
the woman “possessed a remarkably diffident disposition.” There is no direct connection between ignoring certain things
and being diffident; one could lack self-confidence and still shrug off things that would bother others.
Choice (E) is incorrect. “Ingenuous” means innocent and not devious. The structure of the sentence indicates that the part
of the sentence following the colon will modify or elaborate on the first part. The idea that the woman “shrugged off,” or
minimized and ignored, things that others would consider disasters does not elaborate on the idea that the woman
“possessed a remarkably ingenuous disposition.” There is no direct connection between ignoring certain things and being
ingenuous; one who is innocent could shrug off things that would bother others.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 9
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 9
Difficulty Level: HARD (8 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Every now and again, cosmologists decide that the
universe needs “redecorating.” Sometimes they declutter,
as when Copernicus shuffled the Sun and the Earth to make
the planets move in straightforward orbits. Sometimes they
embellish, as when Einstein decided there’s more to space
than good old-fashioned nothingness and introduced the
concept of a deformable space-time. They’re at it again, but
this time it’s different. Like the decorator who strips away
wallpaper to reveal a crumbling wall, cosmologists are
realizing that their discovery that something is speeding up
the expansion of the universe points to serious problems
with their models. When they’re done fixing things,
chances are we’ll hardly recognize the place.
Question:
The author uses “declutter” (line 2), “embellish” (line 5), and “fixing” (line 12) to
(A) establish a tone of breezy disdain
(B) emphasize the complexity of an issue
(C) vary the terms of a critique
(D) expand upon an earlier figure of speech
(E) explain the details of a technical theory
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. In lines 1-2, the author states, “Every now and again, cosmologists decide that the universe needs
‘redecorating.’” The author is comparing the way cosmologists reorder their conceptions of the universe to the way
someone might redecorate or renovate a home. The terms “declutter,” “embellish,” and “fixing”—terms that often have to
do with home renovation or interior decoration—all expand on the idea that cosmologists “redecorate” the universe. In
lines 8-12, the author makes the comparison explicit: “Like the decorator who strips away wallpaper . . . cosmologists are
realizing that their discovery . . . points to serious problems with their models.”
Choice (A) is incorrect. The terms “declutter,” “embellish,” and “fixing” do not establish a tone of breezy disdain, or
nonchalant scorn; indeed, nothing in the passage suggests that the author is scornful of cosmologists’ changing
conceptions of the universe. Instead, these terms expand upon an earlier figure of speech. The terms—all of which often
have to do with home renovation or interior decoration—relate to the author’s comparison of cosmologists to someone
who is “redecorating” a home.
Choice (B) is incorrect. The terms “declutter,” “embellish,” and “fixing” do not emphasize the complexity of an issue. In
fact, the author uses these terms in an effort to make an issue easier to understand; he or she compares the way
cosmologists reorder their conceptions of the universe to the way someone might redecorate or renovate a home. The
quoted terms often have to do with home renovation or interior decoration, and the author uses them in order to expand on
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 10
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
his or her comparison of cosmologists to someone who is “redecorating.”
Choice (C) is incorrect. The terms “declutter,” “embellish,” and “fixing” are not used to vary the terms of a critique;
indeed, nothing in the passage suggests that the author is critiquing, or examining critically, cosmologists’ changing
conceptions of the universe. Further, the terms are not varied; they are all terms that often have to do with home
renovation or interior decoration. The author uses the quoted terms in order to expand on his or her comparison of the way
cosmologists reorder their conceptions of the universe to the way someone might “redecorate” a home.
Choice (E) is incorrect. The terms “declutter,” “embellish,” and “fixing” are not used to explain the details of a technical
theory; indeed, the author is not trying to provide a technical explanation of the details of cosmologists’ changing
conceptions of the universe. Rather, the author is trying to present cosmologists’ changing conceptions in a way that is
accessible for non-scientists. He or she compares the way cosmologists reorder their conceptions of the universe to the
way someone might “redecorate” a home; the quoted terms, all of which have to do with home renovation or interior
decoration, expand on the author’s comparison.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 11
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 10
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Every now and again, cosmologists decide that the
universe needs “redecorating.” Sometimes they declutter,
as when Copernicus shuffled the Sun and the Earth to make
the planets move in straightforward orbits. Sometimes they
embellish, as when Einstein decided there’s more to space
than good old-fashioned nothingness and introduced the
concept of a deformable space-time. They’re at it again, but
this time it’s different. Like the decorator who strips away
wallpaper to reveal a crumbling wall, cosmologists are
realizing that their discovery that something is speeding up
the expansion of the universe points to serious problems
with their models. When they’re done fixing things,
chances are we’ll hardly recognize the place.
Question:
The last sentence of the passage (“When . . . place”) implies that the
(A) recent views of the cosmos are aesthetically satisfying
(B) current cosmological methods can be bewilderingly complex
(C) new breed of cosmologist will do unnecessary damage to previous theoretical models
(D) contemporary astronomical theories will be thoroughly tested by the scientific community
(E) current cosmological research will transform our understanding of the universe
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. Throughout the passage, the author compares cosmologists’ practice of revising our understanding
of the universe in light of new scientific discoveries to “redecorating.” The author maintains the metaphor into the last
sentence: “When they’re done fixing things, chances are we’ll hardly recognize the place.” The author is referring to the
fact that cosmologists are “at it again,” once again doing research that will “redecorate” the universe. The last sentence of
the passage implies that this current research will transform our understanding of the universe—it will change our
understanding so much that “we’ll hardly recognize” the universe.
Choice (A) is incorrect. Throughout the passage, the author compares cosmologists’ practice of revising our
understanding of the universe in light of new scientific discoveries to “redecorating.” The author maintains the metaphor
into the last sentence: “When they’re done fixing things, chances are we’ll hardly recognize the place.” The author is not
implying that cosmologists’ recent views of the cosmos are aesthetically satisfying, or pleasing in appearance; indeed, it is
somewhat odd to speak of scientific theories in terms of their beauty rather than their scientific attributes. Instead, the
author is implying that cosmologists’ current research will greatly transform our understanding of the universe—it will
change our understanding so much that “we’ll hardly recognize” the universe.
Choice (B) is incorrect. Throughout the passage, the author compares cosmologists’ practice of revising our understanding
of the universe in light of new scientific discoveries to “redecorating.” The author maintains the metaphor into the last
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 12
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
sentence: “When they’re done fixing things, chances are we’ll hardly recognize the place.” The author is not implying that
current cosmological methods can be bewilderingly complex. He or she is not saying that “we’ll hardly recognize” the
“new” universe because it will be too difficult to understand, but rather that we will simply see the universe very
differently because new research will so transform our current understanding.
Choice (C) is incorrect. Throughout the passage, the author compares cosmologists’ practice of revising our understanding
of the universe in light of new scientific discoveries to “redecorating.” The author maintains the metaphor into the last
sentence: “When they’re done fixing things, chances are we’ll hardly recognize the place.” The author is not indicating
that cosmologists currently doing research will damage previous theoretical models of the universe, or that they will
harm anything. Indeed, he or she suggests that cosmologists today are doing what cosmologists have always done:
revising and correcting their understanding of the universe based on new information and discoveries.
Choice (D) is incorrect. Throughout the passage, the author compares cosmologists’ practice of revising our
understanding of the universe in light of new scientific discoveries to “redecorating.” The author maintains the metaphor
into the last sentence: “When they’re done fixing things, chances are we’ll hardly recognize the place.” The author is not
implying that contemporary astronomical theories will be thoroughly tested by the scientific community. He or she is not
talking about how other scientists will treat new theories when they are revealed, but rather about how “we”—the public,
it seems—will have a new view of the universe as a result of current research.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 13
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 11
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Charles Chesnutt, one of the first critically-acclaimed
African American writers, was born in 1858. His stories
display a keen ear for language and an understanding
of both the tragedy of slavery and the heartbreak of
Reconstruction. Chesnutt earned immediate accolades
as a creator of “fresh, vivid, dramatic sketches” in a
“new and delightful vein.” He shared with other writers
such as Bret Harte an intensity of feeling for the rawness
of an emergent America. Chesnutt portrayed human loss
and torment—sometimes with pathos, but more often
with a wit like an ax cutting into a tree in the backwoods
of the North Carolina he knew so well.
Question:
The quotations in lines 6-7 serve as examples of
(A) the reactions of some of Chesnutt’s contemporaries to his stories
(B) Chesnutt’s pronouncements about the purpose of fiction writing
(C) the type of language that appears in Chesnutt’s stories
(D) the shared language of nineteenth-century short-story writers
(E) the unintelligible jargon of modern-day literary critics
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. In line 5, the author indicates that Charles Chesnutt, a writer, “earned immediate accolades” for his
work—that is, he earned praise for his work right away. The author goes on to state that Chesnutt earned praise for
creating “‘fresh, vivid, dramatic sketches’ in a ‘new and delightful vein.’” It is reasonable to assume that these quotations
are examples of the praise Chesnutt received from his contemporaries, or people who were living at the same time, as
soon as they read his work.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In line 5, the author indicates that Chesnutt “earned immediate accolades” for his work—that is,
he earned praise for his work right away. The author goes on to state that Chesnutt earned praise for creating “‘fresh,
vivid, dramatic sketches’ in a ‘new and delightful vein.’” These quotations are not examples of Chesnutt’s
pronouncements about the purpose of fiction writing. It is clear that the quoted statements were not made by Chesnutt, but
rather by others who had read his work. They are examples of the praise Chesnutt received.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In line 5, the author indicates that Chesnutt “earned immediate accolades” for his work—that is,
he earned praise for his work right away. The author goes on to state that Chesnutt earned praise for creating “‘fresh,
vivid, dramatic sketches’ in a ‘new and delightful vein.’” These quotations are not examples of the type of language that
appears in Chesnutt’s stories. It is clear that the quoted statements were not spoken or written by Chesnutt, but rather were
made by others who had read his work. They are examples of the praise Chesnutt received.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 14
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Choice (D) is incorrect. In line 5, the author indicates that Chesnutt, a nineteenth-century writer, “earned immediate
accolades” for his work—that is, he earned praise for his work right away. The author goes on to state that Chesnutt
earned praise for creating “‘fresh, vivid, dramatic sketches’ in a ‘new and delightful vein.’” These quotations are not
examples of the shared language of nineteenth-century short-story writers. It is clear that the statements were made by
people who had read Chesnutt’s work; there is no indication that these people were also writers or that Chesnutt would
have phrased things the same way they did.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In line 5, the author indicates that Chesnutt, a nineteenth-century writer, “earned immediate
accolades” for his work—that is, he earned praise for his work right away. The author goes on to state that Chesnutt
earned praise for creating “‘fresh, vivid, dramatic sketches’ in a ‘new and delightful vein.’” These quotations are not
examples of the unintelligible jargon, or impossible to understand language, of modern-day literary critics. It is clear that
the statements were made by people who were living at the same time as Chesnutt, not by modern critics. The quotes are
examples of the “immediate” praise Chesnutt’s work received—in the 1800s.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 15
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 12
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (5 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Charles Chesnutt, one of the first critically-acclaimed
African American writers, was born in 1858. His stories
display a keen ear for language and an understanding
of both the tragedy of slavery and the heartbreak of
Reconstruction. Chesnutt earned immediate accolades
as a creator of “fresh, vivid, dramatic sketches” in a
“new and delightful vein.” He shared with other writers
such as Bret Harte an intensity of feeling for the rawness
of an emergent America. Chesnutt portrayed human loss
and torment—sometimes with pathos, but more often
with a wit like an ax cutting into a tree in the backwoods
of the North Carolina he knew so well.
Question:
The description in lines 10-12 (“more . . . well”) suggests that many of Chesnutt’s stories
(A) are more realistic than those written by Bret Harte
(B) evoke a warm and sentimental response
(C) influenced the writings of other African American authors
(D) are both forceful and penetrating in their insights
(E) offer vivid depictions of life in the North Carolina wilderness
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. The description in these lines employs a simile: Chesnutt’s writing “portrayed human loss and
torment . . . with a wit like an ax cutting into a tree in the backwoods of the North Carolina he knew so well.” Because an
ax penetrates a tree trunk with considerable force, this figure of speech suggests that many of Chesnutt’s stories are both
forceful and penetrating in their insights.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In lines 9-12 the author states that Chesnutt’s writing “portrayed human loss and torment . . . with
a wit like an ax cutting into a tree in the backwoods of the North Carolina he knew so well.” Bret Harte is mentioned
earlier in the passage, but these lines are focused specifically on Chesnutt’s portrayal of human emotions; the author is not
comparing Chesnutt to Harte or suggesting that Chesnutt’s stories are more realistic than Harte’s.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In lines 9-12 the author states that Chesnutt’s writing “portrayed human loss and torment . . . with
a wit like an ax cutting into a tree in the backwoods of the North Carolina he knew so well.” Although these lines refer to
Chesnutt’s home (North Carolina), the description does not suggest that many of Chesnutt’s stories evoke a warm and
sentimental response. The author is not indicating that Chesnutt wrote sentimental stories about his home; rather, he or she
is describing Chesnutt’s ability to portray “loss and torment”—human experiences that are neither warm nor sentimental.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In lines 9-12 the author states that Chesnutt’s writing “portrayed human loss and torment . . . with
a wit like an ax cutting into a tree in the backwoods of the North Carolina he knew so well.” Earlier in the passage the
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 16
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
author indicates that Chesnutt was “one of the first African American writers”; however, nowhere in the passage does the
author indicate that Chesnutt influenced other writers. The description in lines 9-12 does not suggest that Chesnutt
influenced the writings of other African American authors.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In lines 9-12 the author states that Chesnutt’s writing “portrayed human loss and torment . . . with
a wit like an ax cutting into a tree in the backwoods of the North Carolina he knew so well.” Although the author
mentions the North Carolina wilderness, he or she only does so in order to make the comparison between Chesnutt’s
insights and an ax cutting into a tree more colorful. Chesnutt’s descriptions of things may have been vivid, but there is no
indication that he actually wrote about North Carolina or life in the North Carolina wilderness in his stories.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 17
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 13
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (6 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 18
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 19
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
With which statement regarding the view described in lines 5-7 of Passage 1 (“One . . . not”) would the author of Passage
2 most likely agree?
(A) It has been undermined by recent discoveries in molecular biology.
(B) It has been strengthened by modern ideas about humans’ place in the universe.
(C) It is supported by cognitive neuroscientists.
(D) It is promoted by contemporary philosophers.
(E) It is consistent with the findings of nineteenth-century chemists.
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. The statement in lines 5-7 of Passage 1 summarizes the view that “the body and its parts are
physical matter while the mind is not.” The author of Passage 2 indicates that “advances in molecular biology and
neuroscience” tell us that “every process that is used in the development of the body is also used in the development of the
brain” and that “The initial structure of the mind . . . is a product of our genes.” The author of Passage 2, then, would most
likely agree that the view described in Passage 1 has been undermined by recent discoveries in molecular biology. He or
she believes in the evidence indicating that “our brains are just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways.”
Choice (B) is incorrect. The statement in lines 5-7 of Passage 1 summarizes the view that “the body and its parts are
physical matter while the mind is not.” The author of Passage 2 indicates that “advances in molecular biology and
neuroscience” tell us that “every process that is used in the development of the body is also used in the development of the
brain” and that “The initial structure of the mind . . . is a product of our genes.” The author of Passage 2, then, would not
agree that the view described in Passage 1 has been strengthened by modern ideas about humans’ place in the universe.
The author of Passage 2 would say that the view has been weakened in the recent past, not that it has been strengthened at
all.
Choice (C) is incorrect. The statement in lines 5-7 of Passage 1 summarizes the view that “the body and its parts are
physical matter while the mind is not.” The author of Passage 2 indicates that “advances in molecular biology and
neuroscience” tell us that “every process that is used in the development of the body is also used in the development of the
brain” and that “The initial structure of the mind . . . is a product of our genes.” The author of Passage 2, then, probably
would not agree that the view described in Passage 1 is supported by cognitive neuroscientists; indeed, he or she suggests
that “advances in . . . neuroscience” have contributed to an opposing view.
Choice (D) is incorrect. The statement in lines 5-7 of Passage 1 summarizes the view that “the body and its parts are
physical matter while the mind is not.” The author of Passage 2 indicates that “advances in molecular biology and
neuroscience” tell us that “every process that is used in the development of the body is also used in the development of the
brain” and that “The initial structure of the mind . . . is a product of our genes.” There is no reason to believe the author of
Passage 2 would agree that the view described in Passage 1 is promoted by contemporary philosophers; this author makes
no mention of contemporary philosophers.
Choice (E) is incorrect. The statement in lines 5-7 of Passage 1 summarizes the view that “the body and its parts are
physical matter while the mind is not.” The author of Passage 2 indicates that “advances in molecular biology and
neuroscience” tell us that “every process that is used in the development of the body is also used in the development of the
brain” and that “The initial structure of the mind . . . is a product of our genes.” The author of Passage 2 probably would
not agree that the view described in Passage 1 is consistent with the findings of nineteenth-century chemists; he or she
points out that “John Dalton and the nineteenth-century chemists” found that “our bodies are, like all other matter, made
up of atoms.”
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 20
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 14
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (6 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 21
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 22
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
The tone of the comment that closes the third paragraph of Passage 1 (lines 30-31) is best described as
(A) sarcastic
(B) apologetic
(C) impartial
(D) admiring
(E) sympathetic
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. In the third paragraph of Passage 1, when discussing “mind-body dualism,” the author explains that
Descartes may have been “uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has chronically plagued human beings into
precisely the same state of uncertainty and ambivalence.” In lines 30-31, he or she adds, “Very human and very
understandable.” The tone of this comment is best described as sympathetic, or understanding. The author is indicating
that because many other people throughout time have had mixed feelings concerning an issue, it is easy to understand why
Descartes had mixed feelings concerning the same issue.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In the third paragraph of Passage 1, when discussing “mind-body dualism,” the author explains
that Descartes may have been “uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has chronically plagued human beings into
precisely the same state of uncertainty and ambivalence.” In lines 30-31, he or she adds, “Very human and very
understandable.” The tone of this comment is not sarcastic. Rather than ridiculing or scorning Descartes for having mixed
feelings concerning an issue, the author indicates that it is easy to understand why Descartes felt as he did—after all,
many other people throughout time have had mixed feelings concerning the same issue.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In the third paragraph of Passage 1, when discussing “mind-body dualism,” the author explains
that Descartes may have been “uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has chronically plagued human beings into
precisely the same state of uncertainty and ambivalence.” In lines 30-31, he or she adds, “Very human and very
understandable.” The tone of this comment is not apologetic; the author does not regretfully acknowledge that Descartes
was at fault in any way. Instead, he or she acknowledges that it is easy to understand why Descartes had mixed feelings
concerning an issue—after all, many other people throughout time have had mixed feelings concerning the same issue.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In the third paragraph of Passage 1, when discussing “mind-body dualism,” the author explains
that Descartes may have been “uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has chronically plagued human beings into
precisely the same state of uncertainty and ambivalence.” In lines 30-31, he or she adds, “Very human and very
understandable.” The tone of this comment is not impartial, or unbiased; indeed, the author is clearly sympathizing with
Descartes. He or she is indicating that it is easy to understand why Descartes had mixed feelings concerning an
issue—after all, many other people throughout time have had mixed feelings concerning the same issue.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In the third paragraph of Passage 1, when discussing “mind-body dualism,” the author explains
that Descartes may have been “uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has chronically plagued human beings into
precisely the same state of uncertainty and ambivalence.” In lines 30-31, he or she adds, “Very human and very
understandable.” The tone of this comment is not admiring. Rather than expressing admiration for Descartes in these
lines, the author simply sympathizes with him, explaining that it is easy to understand why Descartes had mixed feelings
concerning an issue—after all, many other people throughout time have had mixed feelings concerning the same issue.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 23
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 15
Difficulty Level: HARD (7 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 24
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 25
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
The author of Passage 2 would most likely view the attitude described in lines 33-35, Passage 1 (“the awe . . . is special”),
as an example of the tendency of humans to
(A) dispute scientific advances
(B) defend their own skepticism
(C) exaggerate the role of the body
(D) overemphasize their distinctiveness
(E) resist identifying with other people
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. In lines 33-35, the author of Passage 1 refers to “the awe and wonder we [humans] deservedly have
for our own minds”; he or she connects this reverence for our own minds with Descartes’ theory of “mind-body dualism.”
The author of Passage 2, however, considers this attitude outdated and “completely at odds with everything that scientists
have learned in molecular biology over the past decade.” This author holds the view that the human mind and body have
developed in the same manner, but acknowledges that this view “is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our minds
are special, somehow separate from the material world.” Therefore, it is most likely that the author of Passage 2 would
consider the attitude expressed in Passage 1 an example of humans’ tendency to overemphasize their distinctiveness, or
specialness.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In lines 33-35, the author of Passage 1 refers to “the awe and wonder we [humans] deservedly
have for our own minds”; he or she connects this reverence for our own minds with Descartes’ theory of “mind-body
dualism.” The author of Passage 2, however, considers this attitude outdated and “completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past decade.” This author holds the view that the human mind and
body have developed in the same manner, but acknowledges that this view “is anathema to our deeply held feelings that
our minds are special, somehow separate from the material world.” Although the author of Passage 2 does maintain that
scientific advances have undercut the theory of mind-body dualism, he or she does not really accuse people of disputing
scientific advances. Rather, the author focuses on humans’ tendency to hold fast to the notion that the human mind is
special.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In lines 33-35, the author of Passage 1 refers to “the awe and wonder we [humans] deservedly
have for our own minds”; he or she connects this reverence for our own minds with Descartes’ theory of “mind-body
dualism.” The author of Passage 2, however, considers this attitude outdated and “completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past decade.” This author holds the view that the human mind and
body have developed in the same manner, but acknowledges that this view “is anathema to our deeply held feelings that
our minds are special, somehow separate from the material world.” The author of Passage 2 probably would not consider
the attitude expressed in Passage 1 evidence of people’s tendency to defend their own skepticism; this author does not
present people as being generally skeptical, or doubtful. Rather, he or she is indicating that people tend to be overly
certain that the human mind is special.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In lines 33-35, the author of Passage 1 refers to “the awe and wonder we [humans] deservedly
have for our own minds”; he or she connects this reverence for our own minds with Descartes’ theory of “mind-body
dualism.” The author of Passage 2, however, considers this attitude outdated and “completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past decade.” This author holds the view that the human mind and
body have developed in the same manner, but acknowledges that this view “is anathema to our deeply held feelings that
our minds are special, somehow separate from the material world.” The author of Passage 2 would not consider the
attitude expressed in Passage 1 evidence of people’s tendency to exaggerate the role of the body; on the contrary, he or
she would likely consider it evidence of people’s tendency to exaggerate the role of the mind .
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 26
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Choice (E) is incorrect. In lines 33-35, the author of Passage 1 refers to “the awe and wonder we [humans] deservedly
have for our own minds”; he or she connects this reverence for our own minds with Descartes’ theory of “mind-body
dualism.” The author of Passage 2, however, considers this attitude outdated and “completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past decade.” This author holds the view that the human mind and
body have developed in the same manner, but acknowledges that this view “is anathema to our deeply held feelings that
our minds are special, somehow separate from the material world.” The author of Passage 2 probably would not consider
the attitude expressed in Passage 1 evidence of people’s tendency to resist identifying with other people; indeed, the
people who view the human mind with awe and wonder presumably believe that all human beings possess “special”
minds.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 27
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 16
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 28
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 29
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
In lines 35-43, Passage 1 (“the human . . . solved”), the author uses repetition primarily to convey the
(A) skills that human beings gradually acquire
(B) distinctions between mind and body
(C) self-absorption that distinguishes human beings
(D) range of emotions people experience
(E) unique capabilities of the human mind
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states, “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.” He or
she then lists the ways the human mind is special, introducing each reason with the word “in.” The author indicates that
the human mind is “special in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be aware of the pain and pleasure of
others; in its ability to love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to symbolize and narrate; in its gift of
language with syntax; in its power to understand the universe and create new universes; in the speed and ease with which
it processes and integrates disparate information so that problems can be solved.” The author of Passage 1 uses this list,
with the repeated word “in,” to convey the unique capabilities of the human mind—that is, the special things that only the
human mind can do.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states, “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.” He
or she then lists the ways the human mind is special, introducing each reason with the word “in.” The author is not
conveying the skills that human beings gradually acquire; he or she gives no indication that the things listed are learned
over time. Rather, the author seems to be conveying the innate, or inborn, abilities of the human mind. The author uses the
list, with the repeated word “in,” to convey unique capabilities of the human mind—that is, the special things that only the
human mind can do.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states, “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.” He
or she then lists the ways the human mind is special, introducing each reason with the word “in.” The author is not
conveying distinctions between mind and body; he or she is not explaining how the mind is different from the body, but
rather seems to be indicating that the human mind is different from other animals’ minds. The author uses the list, with the
repeated word “in,” to convey the unique capabilities of the human mind—that is, the special things that only the human
mind can do.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states, “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.” He
or she then lists the ways the human mind is special, introducing each reason with the word “in.” The author is not
conveying that humans are particularly self-absorbed; indeed, the author seems to agree with the notion that the human
mind is special and unique. He or she uses the list, with the repeated word “in,” to convey the unique capabilities that do
make the human mind special, not to suggest that humans are self-absorbed.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states, “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.” He
or she then lists the ways the human mind is special, introducing each reason with the word “in.” The author is not
conveying the range of emotions people experience. The author lists attributes, not emotions—for example, the ability to
use “language with syntax” is not an emotion. He or she uses the list, with the repeated word “in,” to convey the unique
capabilities of the human mind—that is, the special things that only the human mind can do.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 30
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 17
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (6 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Organization and Ideas
Understand the organization of a reading passage, and identify the main and supporting ideas.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 31
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 32
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
The idea expressed in line 49, Passage 2 (“our minds . . . genomes”), is most like which idea in Passage 1 ?
(A) “the dualism of the mind and the body” (line 15)
(B) “the mind and the body” interacting (lines 17-18)
(C) the “capacity to feel pleasure and pain” (line 36)
(D) The mind’s “ability to symbolize and narrate” (lines 38-39)
(E) The mind’s “gift of language with syntax” (line 39)
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. In line 49, the author of Passage 2 refers to the idea that “our minds float free of our genomes”; in
other words, the idea that the human mind and the human body developed separately and differently. The author of
Passage 2 takes issue with this idea, calling it outdated and disproven by modern science. This idea is most similar to
Descartes’ “dualism of the mind and the body,” mentioned in line 15 of Passage 1. Descartes’ theory “says that the body
and its parts are physical matter while the mind is not.” Both the idea in line 49 (Passage 2) and the idea in line 15
(Passage 1) indicate that the mind and body are fundamentally different and separate.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In line 49, the author of Passage 2 refers to the idea that “our minds float free of our genomes”; in
other words, the idea that the human mind and the human body developed separately and differently. This idea is not most
similar to the idea expressed in lines 17-18 of Passage 1. In these lines, the author of Passage 1 refers to Descartes’
suggestion “that the mind and the body interacted” in some way. The idea expressed in Passage 2 has to do with the
development of the human mind and the human body; it does not have to do with interactions between the mind and body
after they have developed.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In line 49, the author of Passage 2 refers to the idea that “our minds float free of our genomes”; in
other words, the idea that the human mind and the human body developed separately and differently. This idea is not most
similar to the idea expressed in line 36 of Passage 1. In that line, the author of Passage 1 refers to the human mind’s
“capacity to feel pleasure and pain.” The idea expressed in Passage 2 has to do with the development of the human mind
and the human body; it does not address specific abilities of the human mind (such as the ability to experience emotions).
Choice (D) is incorrect. In line 49, the author of Passage 2 refers to the idea that “our minds float free of our genomes”; in
other words, the idea that the human mind and the human body developed separately and differently. This idea is not most
similar to the idea expressed in lines 38-39 of Passage 1. In these lines, the author of Passage 1 refers to the human mind’s
“ability to symbolize and narrate.” The idea expressed in Passage 2 has to do with the development of the human mind
and human body; it does not address specific abilities of the human mind (such as the ability to narrate events or
experiences).
Choice (E) is incorrect. In line 49, the author of Passage 2 refers to the idea that “our minds float free of our genomes”; in
other words, the idea that the human mind and the human body developed separately and differently. This idea is not most
similar to the idea expressed in line 39 of Passage 1. In this line, the author of Passage 1 refers to the mind’s “gift of
language with syntax.” The idea expressed in Passage 2 has to do with the development of the human mind and human
body; it does not address specific abilities of the human mind (such as the ability to use a sophisticated language system).
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 33
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 18
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 34
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 35
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
In line 35, Passage 1, and line 59, Passage 2, the word “special” most nearly means
(A) primary
(B) additional
(C) exceptional
(D) definite
(E) featured
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states that “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.” In
lines 58-59, the author of Passage 2 refers to humans’ “deeply held feelings that our minds are special.” Both authors use
the word “special” to mean “exceptional,” or excellent and rare; they're referring to the view that the human mind is
something excellent and distinctive.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states that “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.”
In lines 58-59, the author of Passage 2 refers to humans’ “deeply held feelings that our minds are special.” In these lines,
the word “special” does not mean “primary,” or of first rank or importance. Both authors are referring to the view that the
human mind is excellent, but neither author indicates that the mind is most important—that it is more important than any
other aspect of a human. In lines 35 and 59, the word “special” means “exceptional,” not primary.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states that “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.”
In lines 58-59, the author of Passage 2 refers to humans’ “deeply held feelings that our minds are special.” In these lines,
the word “special” does not mean “additional,” or added. Indeed, it does not make much sense to say that people believe
“that the human mind is added” or “that our minds are added.” In lines 35 and 59, the word “special” means
“exceptional,” or excellent, not additional.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states that “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.”
In lines 58-59, the author of Passage 2 refers to humans’ “deeply held feelings that our minds are special.” In these lines,
the word “special” does not mean “definite,” or having distinct or certain limits. Both authors are referring to the view that
the human mind is excellent and rare, not indicating that the human mind has certain limits.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In line 35, the author of Passage 1 states that “There is no doubt that the human mind is special.”
In lines 58-59, the author of Passage 2 refers to humans’ “deeply held feelings that our minds are special.” In these lines,
the word “special” does not mean “featured,” or displayed or presented as a special attraction. Both authors are referring
to the view that the human mind is excellent and rare, but neither author suggests that the mind is somehow displayed or
held up as a kind of attraction. In lines 35 and 59, the word “special” means “exceptional,” not featured.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 36
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 19
Difficulty Level: HARD (8 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Organization and Ideas
Understand the organization of a reading passage, and identify the main and supporting ideas.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 37
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 38
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
The “growing up” referred to in line 62 is primarily
(A) the acceptance of Copernicus’ theories about Earth’s position in the universe
(B) an increased understanding of and respect for the power of the human mind
(C) a commitment in all scientific branches to solving problems related to human survival
(D) an endorsement of the view that our brains are not a product of carbon, hydrogen, and other elements
(E) the recognition based on scientific developments that humans do not occupy a privileged place in nature
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. The author of Passage 2 explains that although it goes against “our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special,” science has arrived at the “idea that the brain might be assembled in much the same way as the rest of
the body.” The author asserts in the second paragraph that this idea “is a continuation, perhaps the culmination, of a
growing up for the human species that for too long has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.” The author
suggests that the human species is growing up in that, as scientific developments occur, it is coming to the realization that
humans do not occupy a privileged place in nature—much as a growing and maturing child comes to realize that he or she
is not the center of the universe.
Choice (A) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 explains that although it goes against “our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special,” science has arrived at the “idea that the brain might be assembled in much the same way as the rest of
the body.” The author asserts in the second paragraph that this idea “is a continuation, perhaps the culmination, of a
growing up for the human species that for too long has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.” The author refers
to Copernicus’ theories about Earth’s position in the universe, but he or she presents the acceptance of those theories as
just one stage in humans’ realization that they are not the center of the universe. The phrase “growing up” does not refer
only to the acceptance of Copernicus’ theories but rather to the entire process, sparked by multiple scientific
developments, of humans recognizing that they do not occupy a privileged place in nature.
Choice (B) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 explains that although it goes against “our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special,” science has arrived at the “idea that the brain might be assembled in much the same way as the rest of
the body.” The author asserts in the second paragraph that this idea “is a continuation, perhaps the culmination, of a
growing up for the human species that for too long has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.” The author does
suggest that we have learned more about the brain, but he or she is not indicating that the human species is growing up in
that it has an increasing understanding of and respect for the power of the human mind. Rather, the author is indicating
that the human species is realizing that humans do not occupy a privileged place in nature—that humans are not the center
of the universe.
Choice (C) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 explains that although it goes against “our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special,” science has arrived at the “idea that the brain might be assembled in much the same way as the rest of
the body.” The author asserts in the second paragraph that this idea “is a continuation, perhaps the culmination, of a
growing up for the human species that for too long has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.” The phrase
“growing up” does not refer to a commitment in all scientific branches to solving problems related to human survival;
indeed, the author of Passage 2 does not discuss human survival. Rather, the phrase indicates that the human species is
realizing that humans do not occupy a privileged place in nature—that humans are not the center of the universe.
Choice (D) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 explains that although it goes against “our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special,” science has arrived at the “idea that the brain might be assembled in much the same way as the rest of
the body.” The author asserts in the second paragraph that this idea “is a continuation, perhaps the culmination, of a
growing up for the human species that for too long has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.” The phrase
“growing up” does not refer to an endorsement of the view that our brains are not a product of carbon, hydrogen, and
other elements; in fact, the author indicates that it is the endorsement of the view that the human brain is made up of “a
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 39
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
bunch of molecules” that might be the culmination of humans’ growth. The phrase indicates that the human species is
realizing that humans do not occupy a privileged place in nature—that humans are not the center of the universe.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 40
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 20
Difficulty Level: HARD (9 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Organization and Ideas
Understand the organization of a reading passage, and identify the main and supporting ideas.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 41
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 42
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
In lines 64-72 (“Copernicus . . . brains”), the author of Passage 2 uses the word “showed” repeatedly to make a point
about the
(A) role of genes in shaping human development
(B) place of human beings in the universe
(C) remarkable achievements of twentieth-century scientists
(D) controversial nature of recent scientific findings
(E) fundamental mystery of the human mind
Answer Explanation:
Choice (B) is correct. In lines 64-72, the author of Passage 2 lists various stages in the “growing up” process that has led
the human species away from “overestimat[ing] its own centrality in the universe”: “Copernicus showed us that our planet
is not at the center of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a mechanical pump. John Dalton and the
nineteenth-century chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter, made up of atoms. Watson and Crick
showed us how genes emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the
Decade of the Brain, cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the product of our brains.” The author of
Passage 2 lists all of the things scientists have “showed” us in order to make a point about the place of human beings in
the universe; he or she indicates that these scientific developments have led humans to accept that we are not at the center
of the universe.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In lines 64-72, the author of Passage 2 lists various stages in the “growing up” process that has led
the human species away from “overestimat[ing] its own centrality in the universe.” He or she lists things scientists have
“showed” us: “that our planet is not at the center of the universe,” “that our heart is a mechanical pump,” “that our bodies
are . . . made up of atoms,” and so on. Although the list includes “Watson and Crick,” who “showed us how genes emerge
from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous,” the author is not making a point about the role of
genes in shaping human development. The discovery concerning genes is just one of the scientific developments the
author asserts has led humans to accept that we are not at the center of the universe; the author’s main point is about the
place of human beings in the universe.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In lines 64-72, the author of Passage 2 lists various stages in the “growing up” process that has led
the human species away from “overestimat[ing] its own centrality in the universe.” He or she lists things scientists have
“showed” us: “that our planet is not at the center of the universe,” “that our heart is a mechanical pump,” “that our bodies
are . . . made up of atoms,” and so on. Although twentieth-century scientists and their achievements are included in this
list, the author is not making a point about the remarkable achievements of twentieth-century scientists; indeed, the list
also includes scientific developments that took place well before the twentieth century. The author’s main point is about
the place of human beings in the universe; he or she asserts that these scientific developments have led humans to accept
that we are not at the center of the universe.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In lines 64-72, the author of Passage 2 lists various stages in the “growing up” process that has led
the human species away from “overestimat[ing] its own centrality in the universe.” He or she lists things scientists have
“showed” us: “that our planet is not at the center of the universe,” “that our heart is a mechanical pump,” “that our bodies
are . . . made up of atoms,” and so on. Although relatively recent scientific findings are mentioned, the author is not
making a point about the controversial nature of recent scientific findings; indeed, most of the findings mentioned are not
recent, and the author gives no indication that the findings are controversial. The author’s main point is about the place of
human beings in the universe; he or she asserts that these scientific developments have led humans to accept that we are
not at the center of the universe.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In lines 64-72, the author of Passage 2 lists various stages in the “growing up” process that has led
the human species away from “overestimat[ing] its own centrality in the universe.” He or she lists things scientists have
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 43
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“showed” us: “that our planet is not at the center of the universe,” “that our heart is a mechanical pump,” “that our bodies
are . . . made up of atoms,” and so on. Although the human mind is mentioned, the author is not making a point about the
fundamental mystery of the human mind; indeed, many of the scientific developments listed are unrelated to the mystery
of the mind. The author’s main point is about the place of human beings in the universe; he or she asserts that these
scientific developments have led humans to accept that we are not at the center of the universe.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 44
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 21
Difficulty Level: HARD (8 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 45
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 46
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
The author of Passage 2 uses the phrase “just a bunch of molecules” in line 78 primarily to
(A) undermine a firmly held conviction
(B) criticize a viewpoint as being unfair
(C) emphasize an overly modest attitude
(D) acknowledge that a concept may seem unappealing
(E) minimize the differences between old and new perspectives
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. In this part of Passage 2, the author is discussing findings “showing that the mechanisms that build
our brains are just a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our bodies.” He or she acknowledges that the
concept may seem unappealing, stating that “some might see the idea that our brains are just a bunch of molecules . . . as a
bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity.” The phrase “just a bunch of molecules” emphasizes that the
concept is unappealing because it seems to reduce the “special” human mind to something very basic and ordinary.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In this part of Passage 2, the author is discussing findings “showing that the mechanisms that
build our brains are just a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our bodies.” He or she acknowledges that
the concept may seem unappealing, stating that “some might see the idea that our brains are just a bunch of molecules . . .
as a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity.” The author uses the phrase “just a bunch of molecules” to
acknowledge that the emerging concept of the brain seems to reduce the human mind to something very basic and
ordinary and therefore is unappealing to those who firmly believe that the mind is “special.” The author is not
undermining the view that the mind is special, but rather explaining how the new concept of the brain must seem to
people who hold that view.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In this part of Passage 2, the author is discussing findings “showing that the mechanisms that
build our brains are just a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our bodies.” He or she acknowledges that
the concept may seem unappealing, stating that “some might see the idea that our brains are just a bunch of molecules . . .
as a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity.” The author is not criticizing the view that the human brain is
“just a bunch of molecules”; in fact, the author agrees with this viewpoint, calling it “an exciting modern take on an old
idea, that there is a bond that unifies all living things.”
Choice (C) is incorrect. In this part of Passage 2, the author is discussing findings “showing that the mechanisms that
build our brains are just a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our bodies.” He or she acknowledges that
the concept may seem unappealing, stating that “some might see the idea that our brains are just a bunch of molecules . . .
as a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity.” The author is not emphasizing an overly modest attitude; the
author agrees with the view that the human brain is “just a bunch of molecules” and does not suggest that scientists are
being modest in describing the mind as such.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In this part of Passage 2, the author is discussing findings “showing that the mechanisms that
build our brains are just a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our bodies.” He or she acknowledges that
the concept may seem unappealing, stating that “some might see the idea that our brains are just a bunch of molecules . . .
as a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity.” The author is not minimizing the differences between old
and new perspectives. Rather, he or she is emphasizing one difference: whereas the old perspective holds that the human
mind is “special” and unique, the new perspective seems to reduce the mind to something very basic and ordinary—to
nothing more than “molecules.”
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 47
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 22
Difficulty Level: EASY (3 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 48
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 49
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
In line 80, “take” most nearly means
(A) scene
(B) share
(C) outlook
(D) reaction
(E) number
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. The author of Passage 2 calls the view that “our brains are just a bunch of molecules” an “exciting
modern take on an old idea, that there is a bond that unifies all living things.” In this context, the term “take” most nearly
means “outlook.” The author is indicating that scientific findings have caused an old viewpoint to be looked at in another
way—in other words, people now have a new outlook.
Choice (A) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 calls the view that “our brains are just a bunch of molecules” an “exciting
modern take on an old idea, that there is a bond that unifies all living things.” In this context, the term “take” does not
mean “scene,” or episode (as in a television show or movie). The author is indicating that the view of the brain represents
a new outlook, not that it is somehow a scene. Indeed, it does not make much sense to say that the new view is a “modern
scene on an old idea.”
Choice (B) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 calls the view that “our brains are just a bunch of molecules” an “exciting
modern take on an old idea, that there is a bond that unifies all living things.” In this context, the term “take” does not
mean “share,” or portion belonging to one. The author is indicating that the view of the brain represents a new outlook,
not that it is a portion of something that is owed to someone. Indeed, it does not make much sense to say that the new
view is a “modern share on an old idea.”
Choice (D) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 calls the view that “our brains are just a bunch of molecules” an “exciting
modern take on an old idea, that there is a bond that unifies all living things.” In this context, the term “take” does not
mean “reaction. The author is indicating that the view of the brain represents a new outlook, but he or she does not
indicate that it is a direct response to the “old idea” that all living things are connected. Further, one would not say that a
view is a “modern reaction on an old idea.”
Choice (E) is incorrect. The author of Passage 2 calls the view that “our brains are just a bunch of molecules” an “exciting
modern take on an old idea, that there is a bond that unifies all living things.” As it is used in line 80, the term “take” does
not mean “number,” or, in this context, the quantity of something taken at one time. It does not make sense to say that a
new view of the brain is a “modern number on an old idea.”
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 50
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 23
Difficulty Level: HARD (7 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 51
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 52
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
Which best describes the final sentences of Passage 1 (lines 43-46) and Passage 2 (lines 81-85), respectively?
(A) Perplexed . . resigned
(B) Cautionary . . stirring
(C) Ironic . . dismissive
(D) Reverent . . dispassionate
(E) Indignant . . surprised
Answer Explanation:
Choice (B) is correct. The author of Passage 1 discusses the “mind-body dualism” theory associated with Descartes,
mentioning that “mainstream” science and philosophy no longer believe “that the body and its parts are physical matter
while the mind is not.” This author acknowledges that Descartes’ view appeals to “the awe and wonder we deservedly
have for our own minds,” but in the last line he or she cautions that “awe and wonder at the human mind are compatible
with other views of the relation between the body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any more correct.” The
author of Passage 2 praises the view that has replaced mind-body dualism, asserting that the idea that “our brains are just a
bunch of molecules” is actually “an exciting modern take on an old idea, that there is a bond that unifies all living things.”
He or she goes on to conclude with a stirring, or rousing and inspiring, statement about unity among living things:
“Through advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can now understand better than ever just how deeply we
share our biological make-up . . . with all the creatures with which we share our planet.” The final sentence of Passage 1 is
cautionary, while the final sentence of Passage 2 is stirring.
Choice (A) is incorrect. The author of Passage 1 discusses the “mind-body dualism” theory associated with Descartes,
mentioning that “mainstream” science and philosophy no longer believe “that the body and its parts are physical matter
while the mind is not.” This author acknowledges that Descartes’ view appeals to “the awe and wonder we deservedly
have for our own minds,” but in the last line he or she cautions that “awe and wonder at the human mind are compatible
with other views of the relation between the body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any more correct.” The
final sentence of Passage 1 is not perplexed; the author does not seem confused about anything regarding views of the
human mind and body. Further, the final sentence of Passage 2 is not resigned, or accepting of defeat. Rather, the final
sentence is stirring, or inspiring. After praising the view that has replaced mind-body dualism and asserting that it verifies
the “bond that unifies all living things,” the author of Passage 2 concludes with an inspiring statement about “how deeply
we share our biological make-up . . . with all the creatures with which we share our planet.”
Choice (C) is incorrect. The author of Passage 1 discusses the “mind-body dualism” theory associated with Descartes,
mentioning that “mainstream” science and philosophy no longer believe “that the body and its parts are physical matter
while the mind is not.” This author acknowledges that Descartes’ view appeals to “the awe and wonder we deservedly
have for our own minds,” but in the last line he or she cautions that “awe and wonder at the human mind are compatible
with other views of the relation between the body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any more correct.” The
final sentence of Passage 1 is not ironic, or humorously sarcastic; the author seems to be sincere, not sarcastic. Further, the
final sentence of Passage 2 is stirring, or inspiring, not dismissive. After praising the view that has replaced mind-body
dualism and asserting that it verifies the “bond that unifies all living things,” the author of Passage 2 concludes with an
inspiring statement about “how deeply we share our biological make-up . . . with all the creatures with which we share our
planet.”
Choice (D) is incorrect. The author of Passage 1 discusses the “mind-body dualism” theory associated with Descartes,
mentioning that “mainstream” science and philosophy no longer believe “that the body and its parts are physical matter
while the mind is not.” This author acknowledges that Descartes’ view appeals to “the awe and wonder we deservedly
have for our own minds,” but in the last line he or she cautions that “awe and wonder at the human mind are compatible
with other views of the relation between the body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any more correct.” The
final sentence of Passage 1 is not reverent, or worshipful; rather, it is cautionary, warning people not to believe incorrect
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 53
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
views. Further, the final sentence of Passage 2 is not dispassionate, or unaffected by strong feeling; rather, it is stirring, or
inspiring. After praising the view that has replaced mind-body dualism and asserting that it verifies the “bond that unifies
all living things,” the author of Passage 2 concludes with an inspiring statement about “how deeply we share our
biological make-up . . . with all the creatures with which we share our planet.”
Choice (E) is incorrect. The author of Passage 1 discusses the “mind-body dualism” theory associated with Descartes,
mentioning that “mainstream” science and philosophy no longer believe “that the body and its parts are physical matter
while the mind is not.” This author acknowledges that Descartes’ view appeals to “the awe and wonder we deservedly
have for our own minds,” but in the last line he or she cautions that “awe and wonder at the human mind are compatible
with other views of the relation between the body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any more correct.” The
final sentence of Passage 1 is not indignant, or angry over something unjust or unworthy; although the author cautions
people not to believe incorrect views, he or she does not seem to be angry about anything. Further, the final sentence of
Passage 2 is stirring, or inspiring, not surprised. After praising the view that has replaced mind-body dualism and asserting
that it verifies the “bond that unifies all living things,” the author of Passage 2 concludes with an inspiring statement about
“how deeply we share our biological make-up . . . with all the creatures with which we share our planet.”
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 54
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 24
Difficulty Level: HARD (7 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
These two passages are adapted from books written in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
It is easy to understand why the mind may appear
to be a forbidding, unapproachable mystery. The mind,
as an entity, seems to be different in kind from other things
we know, namely, from the objects around us and from the
parts of our own bodies that we see and touch. One view
says that the body and its parts are physical matter while
the mind is not. On one side is the physically extensive
matter that constitutes the cells, tissues, and organs of our
bodies. On the other side is the stuff we cannot touch—all
the rapidly formed feelings, sights, and sounds that make
up the thoughts in our minds. This view is no longer
mainstream in science or philosophy, although it is
probably the view that most human beings today would
regard as their own.
This idea of the dualism of the mind and the body was
dignified by seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist
René Descartes. Descartes also proposed that the mind
and the body interacted, yet he never explained how the
interaction might take place beyond saying that the pineal
gland was the conduit for such interactions. The pineal is
a small structure, located at the midline and base of the
brain, and it turns out to be rather poorly connected and
endowed for the momentous job Descartes required of it.
Whether Descartes really believed in mind-body
dualism is by no means certain. He might have believed
it at some point and then not, which is not meant at all
as a criticism. It would simply mean that Descartes
was uncertain and ambivalent about a problem that has
chronically plunged human beings into precisely the
same state of uncertainty and ambivalence. Very human
and very understandable.
In spite of its scientific shortcomings, the view
identified with Descartes resonates well with the awe
and wonder we deservedly have for our own minds.
There is no doubt that the human mind is special—special
in its immense capacity to feel pleasure and pain and to be
aware of the pain and pleasure of others; in its ability to
love and pardon; in its prodigious memory; in its ability to
symbolize and narrate; in its gift of language with syntax;
in its power to understand the universe and create new
universes; in the speed and ease with which it processes
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 55
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and integrates disparate information so that problems can
be solved. But awe and wonder at the human mind are
compatible with other views of the relation between the
body and the mind and do not make Descartes’ views any
more correct.
Passage 2
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Line 75
Line 80
Line 85
It is popular in some quarters to claim that the human
brain is largely unstructured at birth; it is tempting to
believe that our minds float free of our genomes.* But
such beliefs are completely at odds with everything that
scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past
decade. From cell division to cell differentiation, every
process that is used in the development of the body is also
used in the development of the brain.
The idea that the brain might be assembled in much
the same way as the rest of the body—on the basis of
the action of thousands of autonomous but interacting
genes—is anathema to our deeply held feelings that our
minds are special, somehow separate from the material
world. Yet at the same time, for the Western intellectual
tradition, it is a continuation, perhaps the culmination,
of a growing up for the human species that for too long
has overestimated its own centrality in the universe.
Copernicus showed us that our planet is not at the center
of the universe. William Harvey showed that our heart is a
mechanical pump. John Dalton and the nineteenth-century
chemists showed that our bodies are, like all other matter,
made up of atoms. Watson and Crick showed us how genes
emerge from chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. In the 1990s, the Decade of the Brain,
cognitive neuroscientists showed that our minds are the
product of our brains. Early returns from this century are
showing that the mechanisms that build our brains are just
a special case of the mechanisms that build the rest of our
bodies. The initial structure of the mind, like the initial
structure of the rest of the body, is a product of our genes.
Although some might see the idea that our brains are
just a bunch of molecules, grown in all the usual ways, as
a bleak renunciation of all that is special about humanity,
to me it is an exciting modern take on an old idea, that
there is a bond that unifies all living things. Through
advances in molecular biology and neuroscience, we can
now understand better than ever just how deeply we share
our biological make-up—physical and mental—with all
the creatures with which we share our planet.
*genomes: the genetic material of an organism
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 56
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Question:
Both passages suggest that the notion that the mind and body are separate is
(A) appealing but problematic
(B) novel but impractical
(C) rational and reassuring
(D) innovative and controversial
(E) demeaning and shortsighted
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. Both passages suggest that the notion that the mind and body are separate is appealing but
problematic. The author of Passage 1 states that “the view that most human beings today would regard as their own” holds
that “the body and its parts are physical matter while the mind is not.” The author suggests that this view is appealing
given “the awe and wonder we . . . have for our own minds.” However, the author also suggests that this view is
problematic: “This view is no longer mainstream in science or philosophy” and is not “correct.” Likewise, the author of
Passage 2 acknowledges that humans have “deeply held feelings that our minds are special, somehow separate from the
material world,” but also asserts that this appealing notion is incorrect: “such beliefs are completely at odds with
everything that scientists have learned in molecular biology over the past decade.”
Choice (B) is incorrect. Neither the author of Passage 1 nor the author of Passage 2 considers the notion of mind-body
dualism novel, or new. Indeed, the author of Passage 1 indicates that this theory is associated with Descartes, a
“seventeenth-century philosopher,” and the author of Passage 2 suggests that humans have a long history of viewing the
human brain as “special, somehow separate from the material world.” Further, both authors do more than call mind-body
dualism impractical; both authors indicate that the notion is incorrect.
Choice (C) is incorrect. Both passages suggest that the notion that the mind and body are separate is appealing, which
suggests that some people might find the notion reassuring; some might be comforted by thinking of the human mind as
something “special” that deserves “awe and wonder.” However, neither the author of Passage 1 nor the author of Passage
2 considers the notion of mind-body dualism rational, or suggests that the notion is based on reason. In fact, the author of
Passage 2 explicitly states that the notion is “completely at odds with everything that scientists have learned in molecular
biology over the past decade.”
Choice (D) is incorrect. Neither the author of Passage 1 nor the author of Passage 2 considers the notion of mind-body
dualism innovative, or original and imaginative. Indeed, the author of Passage 1 indicates that this theory is associated
with Descartes, a “seventeenth-century philosopher,” and the author of Passage 2 suggests that humans have a long
history of viewing the human brain as “special, somehow separate from the material world.” Further, although both
authors indicate that scientific developments have shown the theory is incorrect, neither author suggests that the theory is
controversial among the general public or even among scientists.
Choice (E) is incorrect. Neither the author of Passage 1 nor the author of Passage 2 considers the notion of mind-body
dualism demeaning, or degrading; on the contrary, both acknowledge that the theory is appealing because it supports the
human tendency to view the human brain as “special” and worthy of “awe and wonder.” Further, although both authors
indicate that the theory is now outdated, neither author suggests the theory was shortsighted, or lacking in foresight, when
it was developed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 57
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 25
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
Although giraffes can be found in zoos and preserves worldwide, they are ------- to Africa, their sole native land.
(A) beneficial
(B) impervious
(C) indigenous
(D) consigned
(E) analogous
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. “Indigenous” means native to or having originated in a particular region or environment. Because
the sentence indicates that Africa is the “sole native land” of giraffes, it makes sense to say that giraffes “are indigenous to
Africa.” That is, even though giraffes “can be found in zoos and preserves” all over the world, they originated in one
particular place—Africa.
Choice (A) is incorrect. “Beneficial” means giving benefits or being conducive to personal or social well-being. The
sentence indicates that even though giraffes “can be found in zoos and preserves” all over the world, Africa is “their sole
native land,” or the only place from which they originate . Although it is possible that giraffes are somehow conducive to
the well-being of their native land, the sentence makes no mention of benefits or well-being. Therefore, there is no reason
to say that giraffes “are beneficial to Africa.”
Choice (B) is incorrect. “Impervious” means not being capable of being damaged or harmed. The sentence indicates that
even though giraffes “can be found in zoos and preserves” all over the world, Africa is “their sole native land,” or the only
place from which they originate. There is no reason to suggest that giraffes “are impervious to Africa,” or incapable of
being damaged by their native land; indeed, there is no reason to believe that Africa would cause giraffes damage or harm
in the first place. Further, it is unusual to describe one as being impervious to a region or place.
Choice (D) is incorrect. To be “consigned” is to be given over to or in the custody of another. It is somewhat illogical to
suggest that giraffes “are consigned to Africa”; the sentence states that “giraffes can be found in zoos and preserves” all
around the world, indicating that not all giraffes are in Africa’s custody. Further, if Africa is the “native land” of giraffes,
or the place from which they originate, giraffes would not need to be given over to Africa.
Choice (E) is incorrect. “Analogous” means similar or equivalent in some respects. The sentence indicates that even
though giraffes “can be found in zoos and preserves” all over the world, Africa is “their sole native land,” or the only
place from which they originate. Although giraffes originate in Africa, there is no reason to suggest that they “are
analogous to Africa”; nothing in the sentence indicates that giraffes and the continent of Africa are similar or the same in
any particular ways.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 58
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 26
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
The term “best-seller” is ------- rather than ------- ; that is, it means only that certain books are selling better than others.
(A) unpredictable . . consequential
(B) prescriptive . . descriptive
(C) fluid . . dynamic
(D) comparative . . absolute
(E) relative . . gratuitous
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. “Comparative” means relative, or considered in comparison to something else. “Absolute” means
not relative, or independent and not considered in relation to other things. The structure of the sentence indicates that the
terms that fit the blanks will be nearly opposite in meaning. Further, the part of the sentence after the semicolon indicates
that the term that fits the first blank has to do with comparing things (in this case, book sales). The terms “comparative”
and “absolute” logically complete the sentence. It makes sense to say that the term “best-seller” is comparative because it
“means only that certain books are selling better than others,” and something that is comparative is the opposite of
something that is absolute.
Choice (A) is incorrect. “Unpredictable” means irregular or not capable of being predicted or foretold. In this context,
something that is “consequential” is the consequence, or secondary result, of something else. The structure of the sentence
indicates that the terms that fit the blanks will be nearly opposite in meaning. The terms “unpredictable” and
“consequential” are not necessarily opposites; the consequences of something cannot always be predicted. Further, the
part of the sentence after the semicolon indicates that the term that fits the first blank has to do with comparing things (in
this case, book sales); the term “unpredictable” is not logically connected to making a comparison. Finally, there is no
reason to describe a common term (“best-seller”) as unpredictable.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In this context, “prescriptive” means founded on or authorized by long-standing custom or usage.
“Descriptive” means serving to describe, or to represent or give an account of something in words. The structure of the
sentence indicates that the terms that fit the blanks will be nearly opposite in meaning. The terms “prescriptive” and
“descriptive” are not necessarily opposites; a term that has been in use for a long time could describe something. Further,
the part of the sentence after the semicolon indicates that the term that fits the first blank has to do with comparing things
(in this case, book sales); the term “prescriptive” is not logically connected to making a comparison.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In this context, “fluid” means subject to change or movement. “Dynamic” means marked by
usually continuous activity or change. The structure of the sentence indicates that the terms that fit the blanks will be
nearly opposite in meaning. The terms “fluid” and “dynamic” are not opposites; in fact, the terms are almost synonymous.
Further, the part of the sentence after the semicolon indicates that the term that fits the first blank has to do with
comparing things (in this case, book sales); the term “fluid” is not logically connected to making a comparison.
Choice (E) is incorrect. “Relative” means comparative, or not absolute or independent. “Gratuitous” means unnecessary
and unwarranted. The part of the sentence after the semicolon indicates that the term that fits the first blank has to do with
comparing things (in this case, book sales); therefore, the term “relative” makes sense in the first blank. However, the
structure of the sentence indicates that the terms that fit the blanks will be nearly opposite in meaning; being unwarranted
is not the opposite of being comparative, so the term “gratuitous” does not fit the second blank. Indeed, there is no logical
connection between being comparative and being unwarranted.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 59
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 27
Difficulty Level: HARD (9 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
The professor was forced to ------- her exhaustive project of documenting regional dialects after losing most of the
funding that paid research assistants to collect extensive data.
(A) eradicate
(B) bemoan
(C) curtail
(D) recant
(E) sever
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. To “curtail” is to make less by cutting away some part, or to cut back. The sentence indicates that
the professor lost “most of the funding” that allowed her to pay “research assistants to collect extensive data” for “her
exhaustive project.” Because the professor lost most—but not all—of the funding, it makes sense to say that she had to
curtail, or cut back, the project.
Choice (A) is incorrect. To “eradicate” is to do away with completely. The sentence indicates that the professor lost “most
of the funding” that allowed her to pay “research assistants to collect extensive data” for “her exhaustive project.”
Although the professor lost most of her funding, she did not lose all of it; therefore, there is no reason to suggest that
she had to completely do away with her project. It is more likely that the professor only had to cut back the project.
Choice (B) is incorrect. To “bemoan” is to express deep grief or distress over something. The sentence indicates that the
professor “was forced to” do something after she lost “most of the funding” that allowed her to pay “research assistants to
collect extensive data” for her project. Although it is likely that the professor felt some grief or distress over losing much
of her funding, it is somewhat illogical to say that she would have had to be forced to bemoan her exhaustive project.
Further, saying that the professor was distressed does not indicate how the project was affected by the decrease in
funding.
Choice (D) is incorrect. To “recant” is to renounce or withdraw a statement or belief. The sentence indicates that the
professor “was forced to” do something after she lost “most of the funding” that allowed her to pay “research assistants to
collect extensive data” for her project. It is somewhat illogical to say that the professor “was forced to recant her
exhaustive project” after losing much of her funding; a research project is not a statement or belief that could be
renounced. It makes more sense to say that the professor had to curtail, or cut back, the project when her funding was
reduced.
Choice (E) is incorrect. To “sever” is to completely remove as if by cutting. The sentence indicates that the professor lost
“most of the funding” that allowed her to pay “research assistants to collect extensive data” for “her exhaustive project.”
Although the professor lost most of her funding, she did not lose all of it; therefore, there is no reason to suggest that
she had to completely stop or cut off her project. It is more likely that the professor only had to cut back the project to
some degree.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 60
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 28
Difficulty Level: HARD (8 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
Some scientists claim that repeated exposure to sustained noise ------- blood-pressure regulation and might even make
people prone to hypertension; others, by contrast, have obtained inconclusive evidence that ------- the correlation.
(A) sharpens . . conflates
(B) increases . . diminishes
(C) aggravates . . buttresses
(D) disrupts . . quantifies
(E) impairs . . minimizes
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. To impair is to damage or make worse. To minimize is to underestimate or play down. The structure
of the sentence and the phrase “by contrast” indicate that two groups of people—“Some scientists” and “others”—hold
conflicting opinions concerning the effect “repeated exposure to sustained noise” has on “blood-pressure regulation,” or
the body’s ability to keep blood pressure under control. It is clear that the first group of scientists think noise has a
negative effect on blood-pressure regulation, since they claim it “might even make people prone to hypertension,” or
likely to have abnormally high blood pressure; therefore, it makes sense to say that they believe repeated exposure to
noise “impairs blood-pressure regulation.” The other scientists, then, probably do not believe that repeated exposure to
noise has a negative effect on blood-pressure regulation. It makes sense to say that these other scientists have gathered
“evidence that minimizes the correlation,” or evidence that seems to downplay the relationship between noise and bloodpressure regulation.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In this context, to sharpen is to hone or make more effective. To conflate is to combine into a
whole. The structure of the sentence and the phrase “by contrast” indicate that two groups of people—“Some scientists”
and “others”—hold conflicting opinions concerning the effect “repeated exposure to sustained noise” has on “bloodpressure regulation,” or the body’s ability to keep blood pressure under control. It is clear that the first group of scientists
think noise has a negative effect on blood-pressure regulation, since they claim it “might even make people prone to
hypertension,” or likely to have abnormally high blood pressure; therefore, these scientists would not say that repeated
exposure to noise “sharpens blood-pressure regulation,” or makes blood-pressure regulation more effective. Further, it
does not make sense to say that the other scientists have gathered “evidence that conflates the correlation,” or combines
the relationship; a combination requires at least two elements, but only one is mentioned (a correlation).
Choice (B) is incorrect. In this context, to increase is to make greater in intensity. To diminish is to make less or cause to
appear less. The structure of the sentence and the phrase “by contrast” indicate that two groups of people—“Some
scientists” and “others”—hold conflicting opinions concerning the effect “repeated exposure to sustained noise” has on
“blood-pressure regulation,” or the body’s ability to keep blood pressure under control. It is clear that the first group of
scientists think noise has a negative effect on blood-pressure regulation, since they claim it “might even make people
prone to hypertension,” or likely to have abnormally high blood pressure. Because the other scientists disagree, they might
have gathered evidence that causes the relationship between noise and blood-pressure regulation to appear less important;
therefore, the term “diminishes” makes sense in the second blank. However, the term “increases” does not fit the first
blank. The first group of scientists would not say that repeated exposure to noise “increases,” or intensifies, the body’s
ability to keep blood pressure under control.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In this context, to aggravate is to make worse. To buttress is to support or strengthen. The
structure of the sentence and the phrase “by contrast” indicate that two groups of people—“Some scientists” and
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 61
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“others”—hold conflicting opinions concerning the effect “repeated exposure to sustained noise” has on “blood-pressure
regulation,” or the body’s ability to keep blood pressure under control. It is clear that the first group of scientists think
noise has a negative effect on blood-pressure regulation, since they claim it “might even make people prone to
hypertension,” or likely to have abnormally high blood pressure; these scientists might say that repeated exposure to noise
“aggravates,” or worsens, blood-pressure regulation. However, because the other scientists disagree, it is unlikely that
they would have gathered “evidence that buttresses the correlation,” or evidence that strengthens the relationship between
noise and blood-pressure regulation.
Choice (D) is incorrect. To disrupt is to interrupt the normal course of something. To quantify is to determine or express
the quantity of something. The structure of the sentence and the phrase “by contrast” indicate that two groups of
people—“Some scientists” and “others”—hold conflicting opinions concerning the effect “repeated exposure to sustained
noise” has on “blood-pressure regulation,” or the body’s ability to keep blood pressure under control. It is clear that the
first group of scientists think noise has a negative effect on blood-pressure regulation, since they claim it “might even
make people prone to hypertension,” or likely to have abnormally high blood pressure; these scientists might say that
repeated exposure to noise interrupts the normal course of blood-pressure regulation, so the term “disrupts” fits the first
blank. However, the term “quantifies” does not logically fit the second blank. The evidence gathered by the second group
of scientists is described as “inconclusive,” or not definite. Such evidence would not be said to quantify the correlation
between noise and blood-pressure regulation; if the evidence is not definite, it cannot conclusively determine anything.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 62
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 29
Difficulty Level: HARD (9 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
Question:
Many popular historical anecdotes, although previously unquestioned and still repeated in some textbooks, are now
considered ------- by professional historians.
(A) requisite
(B) canonical
(C) beneficent
(D) vociferous
(E) apocryphal
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. “Apocryphal” means of doubtful authenticity. The term “although” indicates a contrast between the
way “Many popular historical anecdotes” used to be viewed (“previously unquestioned”) and the way those anecdotes are
now considered. It makes sense to say that some historical anecdotes that were once unquestioned, or were generally
accepted as true, might now be seen as apocryphal, or possibly inauthentic or untrue.
Choice (A) is incorrect. “Requisite” means essential or necessary. The term “although” indicates a contrast between the
way “Many popular historical anecdotes” used to be viewed (“previously unquestioned”) and the way those anecdotes are
now considered. Therefore, the term that fits the blank should mean the opposite of “unquestioned.” The term “requisite”
is not the best choice; being essential or necessary is not the opposite of being generally accepted as true.
Choice (B) is incorrect. “Canonical” means part of a canon, or a sanctioned or accepted body of related works. The term
“although” indicates a contrast between the way “Many popular historical anecdotes” used to be viewed (“previously
unquestioned”) and the way those anecdotes are now considered. Therefore, the term that fits the blank should mean the
opposite of “unquestioned.” The term “canonical” is not the best choice; being part of an accepted body of works is not
the opposite of being generally accepted as true. Indeed, an historical anecdote that is considered canonical might be
unquestioned.
Choice (C) is incorrect. “Beneficent” means beneficial or conducive to personal or social well-being. The term “although”
indicates a contrast between the way “Many popular historical anecdotes” used to be viewed (“previously unquestioned”)
and the way those anecdotes are now considered. Therefore, the term that fits the blank should mean the opposite of
“unquestioned.” The term “beneficent” is not the best choice; being beneficial is not the opposite of being generally
accepted as true.
Choice (D) is incorrect. “Vociferous” means marked by vehement insistent outcry, or clamorous. The term “although”
indicates a contrast between the way “Many popular historical anecdotes” used to be viewed (“previously unquestioned”)
and the way those anecdotes are now considered. Therefore, the term that fits the blank should mean the opposite of
“unquestioned.” The term “vociferous” is not the best choice; being clamorous is not the opposite of being generally
accepted as true.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 63
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 30
Difficulty Level: EASY (1 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Organization and Ideas
Understand the organization of a reading passage, and identify the main and supporting ideas.
Passage 1
Advertisers are interested in finding out what exactly
makes pop-up ads on the Internet irritating to viewers.
Why are these ads seen as intrusive? One 2002 marketing
study determined that when Internet users are focused,
they perceive interruptions as more severe than when they
are not focused. What seems to get the attention of viewers
(rather than merely annoy them) is to expose them to popup ads only at breaks in content—for example, when they
are switching between pages. Another marketing strategy
is to increase the relevance of the ad. If a consumer is
browsing an automobile Web site, a pop-up ad for a car
will seem less intrusive than will a travel ad.
Line 5
Line 10
Passage 2
Line 15
Line 20
Consumers can always avoid television advertising
by leaving the room or—more often—changing channels.
Channel switching, or zapping, has become a challenge
for advertisers. A recent marketing study found that placing
an advertisement toward the end of a commercial break
maximizes its brand recall by zappers, who are switching
back to the television program when it is about to resume.
Clearly, the attractiveness of the television program would
also affect the level of advertising recall. If the program is
unappealing, even an ad in the last position won’t stand a
chance with zappers, who may never return to that channel.
Question:
Both passages are concerned with which advertising technique?
(A) The repetition of a catchy slogan
(B) The use of attractive people and scenery
(C) The strategic placement of ads
(D) Follow-up interviews with viewers
(E) Subliminal messages in popular programs
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. Both passages are concerned with the advertising technique of strategically placing ads. The author
of Passage 1 discusses the strategic placement of Internet “pop-up ads,” explaining that “What seems to get the attention
of viewers . . . is to expose them to pop-up ads only at breaks in content—for example, when they are switching between
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 64
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
pages.” The author of Passage 2 discusses the placement of television ads. He or she cites “A recent marketing study” that
“found that placing an advertisement toward the end of a commercial break maximizes its brand recall by” people who are
changing channels and “switching back to the television program when it is about to resume.”
Choice (A) is incorrect. Although the repetition of a catchy slogan is an advertising technique, neither author mentions the
repetition or slogans. Instead, both authors are concerned with the strategic placement of ads. The author of Passage 1
discusses the placement of Internet “pop-up ads,” while the author of Passage 2 discusses the placement of television ads.
Choice (B) is incorrect. Although advertisements often include attractive people and scenery, neither author mentions the
technique of using such people and places in ads. Rather than focusing on the content of ads, both authors are concerned
with the strategic placement of ads. The author of Passage 1 discusses the placement of Internet “pop-up ads,” while the
author of Passage 2 discusses the placement of television ads.
Choice (D) is incorrect. Advertisers might conduct follow-up interviews with viewers of their ads, but neither author
focuses on this advertising technique. Both authors do mention marketing studies (“One 2002 marketing study,” “A recent
marketing study”); however, neither author states that these studies involved follow-up interviews with viewers. Both
passages are primarily concerned with the strategic placement of ads, not the use of interviews.
Choice (E) is incorrect. Some advertisers might use subliminal messaging—a message embedded in something else, like a
television program, and designed not to be consciously seen or heard. However, neither author mentions the technique of
embedding subliminal messages in popular programs. The author of Passage 1 discusses the strategic placement of
Internet “pop-up ads,” while the author of Passage 2 discusses the placement of television ads; neither author suggests that
these ads contain subliminal messages.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 65
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 31
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (5 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Organization and Ideas
Understand the organization of a reading passage, and identify the main and supporting ideas.
Passage 1
Advertisers are interested in finding out what exactly
makes pop-up ads on the Internet irritating to viewers.
Why are these ads seen as intrusive? One 2002 marketing
study determined that when Internet users are focused,
they perceive interruptions as more severe than when they
are not focused. What seems to get the attention of viewers
(rather than merely annoy them) is to expose them to popup ads only at breaks in content—for example, when they
are switching between pages. Another marketing strategy
is to increase the relevance of the ad. If a consumer is
browsing an automobile Web site, a pop-up ad for a car
will seem less intrusive than will a travel ad.
Line 5
Line 10
Passage 2
Line 15
Line 20
Consumers can always avoid television advertising
by leaving the room or—more often—changing channels.
Channel switching, or zapping, has become a challenge
for advertisers. A recent marketing study found that placing
an advertisement toward the end of a commercial break
maximizes its brand recall by zappers, who are switching
back to the television program when it is about to resume.
Clearly, the attractiveness of the television program would
also affect the level of advertising recall. If the program is
unappealing, even an ad in the last position won’t stand a
chance with zappers, who may never return to that channel.
Question:
The primary function of the sentence in lines 3-6 (“One . . . not focused”) is to
(A) paraphrase the question posed in line 3
(B) present a relevant research finding
(C) hypothesize about a solution to a problem
(D) shift the focus to a different medium
(E) address a concern of Internet users
Answer Explanation:
Choice (B) is correct. Passage 1 discusses advertisers’ interest in “finding out what exactly makes pop-up ads on the
Internet irritating to viewers.” In lines 3-6, the author presents a relevant research finding: “One 2002 marketing study
determined that when Internet users are focused, they perceive interruptions as more severe than when they are not
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 66
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
focused.” The study’s finding concerning the degree to which Internet users perceive ads as interruptions is relevant to the
question of what makes Internet pop-up ads irritating to viewers.
Choice (A) is incorrect. Passage 1 discusses advertisers’ interest in “finding out what exactly makes pop-up ads on the
Internet irritating to viewers.” In line 3, the author poses a question: “Why are these ads seen as intrusive?” The primary
function of the sentence in lines 3-6 is not to paraphrase this question; rather than restating the question, the sentence in
lines 3-6 offers one possible answer to the question, citing a relevant research finding (“when Internet users are focused,
they perceive interruptions as more severe than when they are not focused”).
Choice (C) is incorrect. Passage 1 does discuss a problem—Internet users’ irritation with “pop-up ads.” However, the
sentence in lines 3-6 does not hypothesize about a solution to this problem (or any other problem). Rather than offering a
potential solution, the sentence simply cites a research finding that might explain why pop-up ads irritate some viewers in
the first place (“when Internet users are focused, they perceive interruptions as more severe than when they are not
focused”).
Choice (D) is incorrect. Passage 1 begins by explaining that advertisers are interested in “finding out what exactly makes
pop-up ads on the Internet irritating to viewers.” Rather than shifting the focus to a different medium—that is, a different
system of communication, information, or entertainment—the sentence in lines 3-6 continues the discussion of the
Internet and pop-up ads. The sentence cites a relevant research finding that might answer the question of what makes popup ads irritating to viewers.
Choice (E) is incorrect. Passage 1 discusses advertisers’ interest in “finding out what exactly makes pop-up ads on the
Internet irritating to viewers.” Although the sentence in lines 3-6 does have to do with a concern of Internet
users—interruptions—the primary purpose of the sentence is not to address that concern. Instead, the primary purpose of
the sentence in lines 3-6 is to cite a research finding that is relevant to a larger issue—the question of why pop-up ads are
so irritating to viewers.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 67
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 32
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
Passage 1
Advertisers are interested in finding out what exactly
makes pop-up ads on the Internet irritating to viewers.
Why are these ads seen as intrusive? One 2002 marketing
study determined that when Internet users are focused,
they perceive interruptions as more severe than when they
are not focused. What seems to get the attention of viewers
(rather than merely annoy them) is to expose them to popup ads only at breaks in content—for example, when they
are switching between pages. Another marketing strategy
is to increase the relevance of the ad. If a consumer is
browsing an automobile Web site, a pop-up ad for a car
will seem less intrusive than will a travel ad.
Line 5
Line 10
Passage 2
Line 15
Line 20
Consumers can always avoid television advertising
by leaving the room or—more often—changing channels.
Channel switching, or zapping, has become a challenge
for advertisers. A recent marketing study found that placing
an advertisement toward the end of a commercial break
maximizes its brand recall by zappers, who are switching
back to the television program when it is about to resume.
Clearly, the attractiveness of the television program would
also affect the level of advertising recall. If the program is
unappealing, even an ad in the last position won’t stand a
chance with zappers, who may never return to that channel.
Question:
If the advertisers mentioned in Passage 1 chose to apply the information in the last sentence of Passage 2 (lines 21-23),
they would most likely
(A) choose not to advertise on less-interesting Web sites
(B) offer Web users incentives to try their products
(C) survey television viewers about their favorite ads
(D) create their own product Web sites
(E) target only experienced Internet users
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. After referring to a “recent marketing study” having to do with “zappers,” or people who change
television channels during commercial breaks, the author of Passage 2 states that “If the program is unappealing, even an
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 68
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
ad in the last position [of the commercial break] won’t stand a chance with zappers, who may never return to that
channel.” In other words, it is not smart to advertise during unappealing television programs because people may not
watch those programs. If the advertisers mentioned in Passage 1—advertisers concerned with Internet “pop-up
ads”—were to apply this information, they would most likely choose not to advertise on less-interesting Web sites,
because people might be less likely to view those sites.
Choice (B) is incorrect. After referring to a “recent marketing study” having to do with “zappers,” or people who change
television channels during commercial breaks, the author of Passage 2 states that “If the program is unappealing, even an
ad in the last position [of the commercial break] won’t stand a chance with zappers, who may never return to that
channel.” In other words, it is not smart to advertise during unappealing television programs because people may not
watch those programs. There is no reason to suggest that if the advertisers mentioned in Passage 1 were to apply this
information, they would offer Web users incentives to try their products; the information in the last sentence of Passage 2
does not address the idea of offering incentives to try certain products.
Choice (C) is incorrect. After referring to a “recent marketing study” having to do with “zappers,” or people who change
television channels during commercial breaks, the author of Passage 2 states that “If the program is unappealing, even an
ad in the last position [of the commercial break] won’t stand a chance with zappers, who may never return to that
channel.” In other words, it is not smart to advertise during unappealing television programs because people may not
watch those programs. There is no reason to suggest that if the advertisers mentioned in Passage 1 were to apply this
information, they would survey television viewers about their favorite ads; these advertisers are concerned with the
Internet and pop-up ads, not television and television ads.
Choice (D) is incorrect. After referring to a “recent marketing study” having to do with “zappers,” or people who change
television channels during commercial breaks, the author of Passage 2 states that “If the program is unappealing, even an
ad in the last position [of the commercial break] won’t stand a chance with zappers, who may never return to that
channel.” In other words, it is not smart to advertise during unappealing television programs because people may not
watch those programs. There is no reason to suggest that if the advertisers mentioned in Passage 1 were to apply this
information, they would create their own product Web sites; the information in the last sentence of Passage 2 has to do
with the placement of ads, not the creation of new things (Web sites or television programs).
Choice (E) is incorrect. After referring to a “recent marketing study” having to do with “zappers,” or people who change
television channels during commercial breaks, the author of Passage 2 states that “If the program is unappealing, even an
ad in the last position [of the commercial break] won’t stand a chance with zappers, who may never return to that
channel.” In other words, it is not smart to advertise during unappealing television programs because people may not
watch those programs. There is no reason to suggest that if the advertisers mentioned in Passage 1 were to apply this
information, they would target only experienced Internet users; the information in the last sentence of Passage 2 seems to
refer to all viewers of a medium (television), not just those with a lot of experience. The information has to do with the
placement of ads, not viewers’ familiarity with a medium.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 69
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 33
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Organization and Ideas
Understand the organization of a reading passage, and identify the main and supporting ideas.
Passage 1
Advertisers are interested in finding out what exactly
makes pop-up ads on the Internet irritating to viewers.
Why are these ads seen as intrusive? One 2002 marketing
study determined that when Internet users are focused,
they perceive interruptions as more severe than when they
are not focused. What seems to get the attention of viewers
(rather than merely annoy them) is to expose them to popup ads only at breaks in content—for example, when they
are switching between pages. Another marketing strategy
is to increase the relevance of the ad. If a consumer is
browsing an automobile Web site, a pop-up ad for a car
will seem less intrusive than will a travel ad.
Line 5
Line 10
Passage 2
Line 15
Line 20
Consumers can always avoid television advertising
by leaving the room or—more often—changing channels.
Channel switching, or zapping, has become a challenge
for advertisers. A recent marketing study found that placing
an advertisement toward the end of a commercial break
maximizes its brand recall by zappers, who are switching
back to the television program when it is about to resume.
Clearly, the attractiveness of the television program would
also affect the level of advertising recall. If the program is
unappealing, even an ad in the last position won’t stand a
chance with zappers, who may never return to that channel.
Question:
Unlike the viewers presented in Passage 1, viewers in Passage 2 are presented as
(A) intensely outspoken about brand preferences
(B) well informed about television programming
(C) unduly influenced by manipulative advertising
(D) rarely changing focus while watching television
(E) successfully avoiding certain advertisements
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. Both passages discuss viewers of advertisements, but only the viewers discussed in Passage
2—television viewers—are presented as successfully avoiding certain advertisements. The author of Passage 2 explains
that viewers can “avoid television advertising by leaving the room or . . . changing channels.” There is no indication that
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 70
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
the viewers discussed in Passage 1—Internet users—are able to avoid “pop-up ads” or other advertisements on the Web.
Choice (A) is incorrect. Neither the viewers in Passage 2 (television viewers) nor the viewers in Passage 1 (Internet users)
are presented as being intensely outspoken about brand preferences. Indeed, neither passage makes any reference to
people making their brand preferences clearly known.
Choice (B) is incorrect. Passage 2 is concerned with television viewers, but these viewers are not presented as being well
informed about television programming. The author of Passage 2 does not address the extent to which television viewers
are informed about television programming.
Choice (C) is incorrect. Both passages discuss viewers of advertisements, but neither the viewers in Passage 2 (television
viewers) nor the viewers in Passage 1 (Internet users) are presented as being unduly influenced by manipulative
advertising. Indeed, neither passage makes any reference to advertisements that are overly manipulative.
Choice (D) is incorrect. Passage 2 is concerned with television viewers, but these viewers are not presented as rarely
changing focus while watching television. On the contrary, the author of Passage 2 asserts that many of these viewers do
change focus while watching television—they might “[leave] the room” or they might “[change] channels,” never
returning to a certain channel.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 71
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 34
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Understanding Literary Elements
Understand literary elements such as plot, setting and characterization.
This passage is adapted from a short story. The narrator, Marta, recalls an incident from her childhood in rural Mexico.
Passage 1
I said, “Papi, let me finish school.” None of his other
daughters completed more than three grades. “I still can
do my chores,” I told him. “Pay for me to finish school.”
Line 5
Line 10
He dug his boot into la tierra, the dry earth of
Guanajuato, the state he never left in his entire life.
But he still was the smartest man in Ramblas. He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite, unlike
my mother, who never had an education.
“Why do you want to return to school?” he said,
lowering his eyes to me. “So you can meet a man,
marry, and quit? You want me to pay for that?”
“No, Papi,” I said. “I won’t marry in school and I
promise I’ll graduate.”
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
The wind whistled through the trees. My father saw
a fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank, his thin
shoulders hunched as if a small anchor pulled them. I said
urgently, “Papi,” and I almost grabbed his thick, brown
wrist. In the country, he would stop and talk with any
stranger, my father, no matter what he was doing. He
would talk about the harvest, the weather, the latest family
to lose children to the city, but mostly he would listen.
He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. I
followed behind him in my open-toed sandals, carefully
picking my steps. I knew I had lost his attention, and I
searched around me for something to fill the time I would
spend waiting. But there was nothing and nobody. How
often my brothers, sisters, and I wished he would meet
strangers in town. If he met them in a crowded bus station
or near the plaza, we could occupy ourselves easily. But he
never did. In those places, he walked as the stranger, with
a stone face and rigid posture; he would say he had to get
back to the ranch by noon.
“Buenos días,”* my father said to the fisherman.
Line 35
I took my seat ten feet from them. The two men stared
across the lake and talked. Their voices droned on and
blended with the wind. I daydreamed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 72
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“Marta, come here,” my father called to me.
I lifted myself up and shuffled toward them.
Line 40
“Marta,” my father said, “I have asked Don Tomás what
he thinks about your promise.”
I stared at this fisherman, this stranger, with his empty
fishnet and slack, orange pole, and then back at my father
with wide eyes.
Line 45
“I told him about your promise to stay single, and he
told me, ‘Déjala—let her go.’”
The fisherman looked down at his worn canvas shoes.
“If you want it,” he said to the earth beneath his feet.
Line 50
My father called the fisherman “un testigo,” a witness
to my promise. Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave
his house unmarried.
*Good day
Question:
In the first paragraph (lines 1-3), Marta speaks to her father in a tone that is best described as
(A) playful
(B) earnest
(C) mournful
(D) callous
(E) jubilant
Answer Explanation:
Choice (B) is correct. In the first paragraph, Marta speaks to her father in order to convince him to let her be the first of
his daughters to finish school. She makes a plea: “Papi, let me finish school.” She follows this plea with a promise (“I still
can do my chores”) and then repeats her request (“Pay for me to finish school”). Marta’s tone in these lines is earnest;
Marta is serious and intent on convincing her father to let her finish school.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, Marta speaks to her father in order to convince him to let her be the first of
his daughters to finish school. She makes a plea: “Papi, let me finish school.” She follows this plea with a promise (“I still
can do my chores”) and then repeats her request (“Pay for me to finish school”). Marta’s tone in these lines is not playful;
Marta is serious and intent on a goal, not humorous or jesting.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, Marta speaks to her father in order to convince him to let her be the first of
his daughters to finish school. She makes a plea: “Papi, let me finish school.” She follows this plea with a promise (“I still
can do my chores”) and then repeats her request (“Pay for me to finish school”). Marta’s tone in these lines is not
mournful; Marta is serious and intent on her goal but does not display sorrow or seem melancholy.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, Marta speaks to her father in order to convince him to let her be the first of
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 73
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
his daughters to finish school. She makes a plea: “Papi, let me finish school.” She follows this plea with a promise (“I still
can do my chores”) and then repeats her request (“Pay for me to finish school”). Marta’s tone in these lines is not callous;
Marta is serious and intent on her goal but does not display hard-heartedness or seem emotionless.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, Marta speaks to her father in order to convince him to let her be the first of
his daughters to finish school. She makes a plea: “Papi, let me finish school.” She follows this plea with a promise (“I still
can do my chores”) and then repeats her request (“Pay for me to finish school”). Marta’s tone in these lines is not jubilant;
Marta does not express great joy or triumph. Instead, Marta is earnest; she is serious and intent on a goal she has not yet
achieved.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 74
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 35
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Understanding Literary Elements
Understand literary elements such as plot, setting and characterization.
This passage is adapted from a short story. The narrator, Marta, recalls an incident from her childhood in rural Mexico.
Passage 1
I said, “Papi, let me finish school.” None of his other
daughters completed more than three grades. “I still can
do my chores,” I told him. “Pay for me to finish school.”
Line 5
Line 10
He dug his boot into la tierra, the dry earth of
Guanajuato, the state he never left in his entire life.
But he still was the smartest man in Ramblas. He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite, unlike
my mother, who never had an education.
“Why do you want to return to school?” he said,
lowering his eyes to me. “So you can meet a man,
marry, and quit? You want me to pay for that?”
“No, Papi,” I said. “I won’t marry in school and I
promise I’ll graduate.”
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
The wind whistled through the trees. My father saw
a fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank, his thin
shoulders hunched as if a small anchor pulled them. I said
urgently, “Papi,” and I almost grabbed his thick, brown
wrist. In the country, he would stop and talk with any
stranger, my father, no matter what he was doing. He
would talk about the harvest, the weather, the latest family
to lose children to the city, but mostly he would listen.
He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. I
followed behind him in my open-toed sandals, carefully
picking my steps. I knew I had lost his attention, and I
searched around me for something to fill the time I would
spend waiting. But there was nothing and nobody. How
often my brothers, sisters, and I wished he would meet
strangers in town. If he met them in a crowded bus station
or near the plaza, we could occupy ourselves easily. But he
never did. In those places, he walked as the stranger, with
a stone face and rigid posture; he would say he had to get
back to the ranch by noon.
“Buenos días,”* my father said to the fisherman.
Line 35
I took my seat ten feet from them. The two men stared
across the lake and talked. Their voices droned on and
blended with the wind. I daydreamed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 75
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“Marta, come here,” my father called to me.
I lifted myself up and shuffled toward them.
Line 40
“Marta,” my father said, “I have asked Don Tomás what
he thinks about your promise.”
I stared at this fisherman, this stranger, with his empty
fishnet and slack, orange pole, and then back at my father
with wide eyes.
Line 45
“I told him about your promise to stay single, and he
told me, ‘Déjala—let her go.’”
The fisherman looked down at his worn canvas shoes.
“If you want it,” he said to the earth beneath his feet.
Line 50
My father called the fisherman “un testigo,” a witness
to my promise. Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave
his house unmarried.
*Good day
Question:
The reference to “Egypt” (line 7) is intended to suggest which of the following about Marta’s father?
(A) His lack of a formal education
(B) His acceptance of other cultures
(C) The breadth of his knowledge
(D) The extent of his travels
(E) The trivial nature of his reading
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. In line 6, Marta says that her father is “the smartest man in Ramblas.” She goes on to state, “He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite.” In context, the reference to Egypt suggests the breadth, or
comprehensive quality, of Marta’s father’s knowledge. Marta’s remarks suggest that her father is knowledgeable about a
great number of topics, including topics other people in their area may not be very familiar with (such as Egypt).
Choice (A) is incorrect. In line 6, Marta says that her father is “the smartest man in Ramblas.” She goes on to state, “He
read books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite.” Although Marta notes that her mother “never had an education,”
she does not indicate that her father did not receive a formal education; in fact, the comparison to her mother suggests that
Marta’s father did receive some type of formal education. The reference to Egypt suggests that her father is
knowledgeable about a great number of topics, not that he is uneducated.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In line 6, Marta says that her father is “the smartest man in Ramblas.” She goes on to state, “He
read books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite.” Marta’s father might be accepting of other cultures, but the
reference to Egypt is not intended to suggest this; Marta makes no mention of Egypt’s culture, stating only that her father
read books about the country.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 76
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Choice (D) is incorrect. In line 6, Marta says that her father is “the smartest man in Ramblas.” She goes on to state, “He
read books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite.” The reference to Egypt is not intended to suggest the extent of
Marta’s father’s travels; Marta does not indicate that her father has actually been to Egypt. The reference simply suggests
that her father is knowledgeable about a great number of topics, including topics other people in their area may not be
very familiar with (such as Egypt).
Choice (E) is incorrect. In line 6, Marta says that her father is “the smartest man in Ramblas.” She goes on to state, “He
read books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite.” Rather than suggesting the trivial, or unimportant, nature of Marta’s
father’s reading, the reference to Egypt suggests that the father’s reading has been substantial and important—it has
contributed to his status as “the smartest man” in their area. The reference suggests that Marta’s father is knowledgeable
about a great number of topics because he has read about them.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 77
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 36
Difficulty Level: EASY (3 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Understanding Literary Elements
Understand literary elements such as plot, setting and characterization.
This passage is adapted from a short story. The narrator, Marta, recalls an incident from her childhood in rural Mexico.
Passage 1
I said, “Papi, let me finish school.” None of his other
daughters completed more than three grades. “I still can
do my chores,” I told him. “Pay for me to finish school.”
Line 5
Line 10
He dug his boot into la tierra, the dry earth of
Guanajuato, the state he never left in his entire life.
But he still was the smartest man in Ramblas. He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite, unlike
my mother, who never had an education.
“Why do you want to return to school?” he said,
lowering his eyes to me. “So you can meet a man,
marry, and quit? You want me to pay for that?”
“No, Papi,” I said. “I won’t marry in school and I
promise I’ll graduate.”
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
The wind whistled through the trees. My father saw
a fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank, his thin
shoulders hunched as if a small anchor pulled them. I said
urgently, “Papi,” and I almost grabbed his thick, brown
wrist. In the country, he would stop and talk with any
stranger, my father, no matter what he was doing. He
would talk about the harvest, the weather, the latest family
to lose children to the city, but mostly he would listen.
He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. I
followed behind him in my open-toed sandals, carefully
picking my steps. I knew I had lost his attention, and I
searched around me for something to fill the time I would
spend waiting. But there was nothing and nobody. How
often my brothers, sisters, and I wished he would meet
strangers in town. If he met them in a crowded bus station
or near the plaza, we could occupy ourselves easily. But he
never did. In those places, he walked as the stranger, with
a stone face and rigid posture; he would say he had to get
back to the ranch by noon.
“Buenos días,”* my father said to the fisherman.
Line 35
I took my seat ten feet from them. The two men stared
across the lake and talked. Their voices droned on and
blended with the wind. I daydreamed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 78
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“Marta, come here,” my father called to me.
I lifted myself up and shuffled toward them.
Line 40
“Marta,” my father said, “I have asked Don Tomás what
he thinks about your promise.”
I stared at this fisherman, this stranger, with his empty
fishnet and slack, orange pole, and then back at my father
with wide eyes.
Line 45
“I told him about your promise to stay single, and he
told me, ‘Déjala—let her go.’”
The fisherman looked down at his worn canvas shoes.
“If you want it,” he said to the earth beneath his feet.
Line 50
My father called the fisherman “un testigo,” a witness
to my promise. Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave
his house unmarried.
*Good day
Question:
In context, the word “urgently” (line 17) emphasizes Marta’s
(A) regret about the opportunities she has missed
(B) eagerness to appear independent
(C) suspicion of the fisherman’s motives
(D) fear that her father is about to be distracted
(E) anxiety over her relationship with her father
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. As Marta and her father discuss her desire to finish school, Marta notices that her father “[sees] a
fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank.” She states in lines 16-18 that she “said urgently, ‘Papi,’ and . . . almost
grabbed his . . . wrist.” In context, the word “urgently” emphasizes that Marta is afraid her father is about to be distracted
from their discussion about school; this is supported by Marta’s explanation that her father “would stop and talk with any
stranger . . . no matter what he was doing.” Indeed, it is clear from lines 22-24 that Marta’s father does get distracted by
the fisherman (“He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. . . . I knew I had lost his attention”).
Choice (A) is incorrect. As Marta and her father discuss her desire to finish school, Marta notices that her father “[sees] a
fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank.” She states in lines 16-18 that she “said urgently, ‘Papi,’ and . . . almost
grabbed his . . . wrist.” The word “urgently” does not emphasize Marta’s regret about the opportunities she has missed.
Rather than indicating that Marta regrets anything, the word indicates that she is afraid; she is worried that her father is
about to be distracted from their discussion about school because she knows that he will “stop and talk with any stranger .
. . no matter what he [is] doing.” Indeed, lines 22-24 make it clear that Marta’s father does get distracted by the fisherman.
Choice (B) is incorrect. As Marta and her father discuss her desire to finish school, Marta notices that her father “[sees] a
fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank.” She states in lines 16-18 that she “said urgently, ‘Papi,’ and . . . almost
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 79
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
grabbed his . . . wrist.” The word “urgently” does not emphasize Marta’s eagerness to appear independent; these lines do
not deal with independence, but rather with Marta’s fear that her father is about to be distracted from their discussion
about school. Marta knows that her father will “stop and talk with any stranger . . . no matter what he [is] doing.” Indeed,
lines 22-24 make it clear that Marta’s father does get distracted by the fisherman.
Choice (C) is incorrect. As Marta and her father discuss her desire to finish school, Marta notices that her father “[sees] a
fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank.” She states in lines 16-18 that she “said urgently, ‘Papi,’ and . . . almost
grabbed his . . . wrist.” The word “urgently” does not emphasize Marta’s suspicion of the fisherman’s motives; there is no
indication that Marta mistrusts the fisherman. Instead, the word emphasizes Marta’s fear that her father is about to be
distracted from their discussion about school. Marta knows that her father will “stop and talk with any stranger”—such as
the fisherman—“no matter what he [is] doing.” Indeed, lines 22-24 make it clear that Marta’s father does get distracted by
the fisherman.
Choice (E) is incorrect. As Marta and her father discuss her desire to finish school, Marta notices that her father “[sees] a
fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank.” She states in lines 16-18 that she “said urgently, ‘Papi,’ and . . . almost
grabbed his . . . wrist.” The word “urgently” does not emphasize Marta’s anxiety over her relationship with her father;
rather than revealing that she is generally concerned about her relationship with her father, the word emphasizes Marta’s
fear that her father is about to be distracted from their current discussion about school. Marta knows that her father will
“stop and talk with any stranger . . . no matter what he [is] doing.” Indeed, lines 22-24 make it clear that Marta’s father
does get distracted by the fisherman.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 80
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 37
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (6 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Understanding Literary Elements
Understand literary elements such as plot, setting and characterization.
This passage is adapted from a short story. The narrator, Marta, recalls an incident from her childhood in rural Mexico.
Passage 1
I said, “Papi, let me finish school.” None of his other
daughters completed more than three grades. “I still can
do my chores,” I told him. “Pay for me to finish school.”
Line 5
Line 10
He dug his boot into la tierra, the dry earth of
Guanajuato, the state he never left in his entire life.
But he still was the smartest man in Ramblas. He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite, unlike
my mother, who never had an education.
“Why do you want to return to school?” he said,
lowering his eyes to me. “So you can meet a man,
marry, and quit? You want me to pay for that?”
“No, Papi,” I said. “I won’t marry in school and I
promise I’ll graduate.”
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
The wind whistled through the trees. My father saw
a fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank, his thin
shoulders hunched as if a small anchor pulled them. I said
urgently, “Papi,” and I almost grabbed his thick, brown
wrist. In the country, he would stop and talk with any
stranger, my father, no matter what he was doing. He
would talk about the harvest, the weather, the latest family
to lose children to the city, but mostly he would listen.
He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. I
followed behind him in my open-toed sandals, carefully
picking my steps. I knew I had lost his attention, and I
searched around me for something to fill the time I would
spend waiting. But there was nothing and nobody. How
often my brothers, sisters, and I wished he would meet
strangers in town. If he met them in a crowded bus station
or near the plaza, we could occupy ourselves easily. But he
never did. In those places, he walked as the stranger, with
a stone face and rigid posture; he would say he had to get
back to the ranch by noon.
“Buenos días,”* my father said to the fisherman.
Line 35
I took my seat ten feet from them. The two men stared
across the lake and talked. Their voices droned on and
blended with the wind. I daydreamed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 81
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“Marta, come here,” my father called to me.
I lifted myself up and shuffled toward them.
Line 40
“Marta,” my father said, “I have asked Don Tomás what
he thinks about your promise.”
I stared at this fisherman, this stranger, with his empty
fishnet and slack, orange pole, and then back at my father
with wide eyes.
Line 45
“I told him about your promise to stay single, and he
told me, ‘Déjala—let her go.’”
The fisherman looked down at his worn canvas shoes.
“If you want it,” he said to the earth beneath his feet.
Line 50
My father called the fisherman “un testigo,” a witness
to my promise. Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave
his house unmarried.
*Good day
Question:
In context, Marta’s observation in lines 24-26 (“I knew . . . waiting”) conveys a sense of
(A) outrage
(B) disdain
(C) skepticism
(D) resignation
(E) embarrassment
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. Earlier in the passage, Marta explains that her father has a tendency to “stop and talk to any stranger
. . . no matter what he [is] doing.” While discussing her desire to finish school, Marta’s father sees a fisherman and makes
his way over to him. In lines 24-26 Marta states, “I knew I had lost his attention, and I searched around me for something
to fill the time I would spend waiting.” Her observation conveys a sense of resignation, or surrender. Marta accepts it as
inevitable that her father will spend time talking with the fisherman; she is resigned to the fact that she will have to wait to
regain her father’s attention.
Choice (A) is incorrect. Earlier in the passage, Marta explains that her father has a tendency to “stop and talk to any
stranger . . . no matter what he [is] doing.” While discussing her desire to finish school, Marta’s father sees a fisherman
and makes his way over to him. In lines 24-26 Marta states, “I knew I had lost his attention, and I searched around me for
something to fill the time I would spend waiting.” Her observation does not convey a sense of outrage; there is no
indication that Marta is extremely angry and insulted. Instead, Marta conveys a sense of resignation, or surrender; she is
resigned to the fact that she will have to wait to regain her father’s attention.
Choice (B) is incorrect. Earlier in the passage, Marta explains that her father has a tendency to “stop and talk to any
stranger . . . no matter what he [is] doing.” While discussing her desire to finish school, Marta’s father sees a fisherman
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 82
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and makes his way over to him. In lines 24-26 Marta states, “I knew I had lost his attention, and I searched around me for
something to fill the time I would spend waiting.” Her observation does not convey a sense of disdain; there is no
indication that Marta is contemptuous or that she scorns either her father or the fisherman. Instead, she conveys a sense of
resignation, or surrender; she is resigned to the fact that she will have to wait to regain her father’s attention.
Choice (C) is incorrect. Earlier in the passage, Marta explains that her father has a tendency to “stop and talk to any
stranger . . . no matter what he [is] doing.” While discussing her desire to finish school, Marta’s father sees a fisherman
and makes his way over to him. In lines 24-26 Marta states, “I knew I had lost his attention, and I searched around me for
something to fill the time I would spend waiting.” Her observation does not convey skepticism; there is no indication that
Marta has an attitude of doubt. In fact, Marta seems to know exactly what to expect with her father—she is resigned to the
fact that she will have to wait for her father to finish talking with the fisherman before she can regain his attention.
Choice (E) is incorrect. Earlier in the passage, Marta explains that her father has a tendency to “stop and talk to any
stranger . . . no matter what he [is] doing.” While discussing her desire to finish school, Marta’s father sees a fisherman
and makes his way over to him. In lines 24-26 Marta states, “I knew I had lost his attention, and I searched around me for
something to fill the time I would spend waiting.” Her observation does not convey embarrassment; there is no indication
that Marta is embarrassed, or self-conscious and distressed. Marta simply conveys a sense of resignation, or surrender; she
is resigned to the fact that she will have to wait to regain her father’s attention.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 83
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 38
Difficulty Level: EASY (3 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Understanding Literary Elements
Understand literary elements such as plot, setting and characterization.
This passage is adapted from a short story. The narrator, Marta, recalls an incident from her childhood in rural Mexico.
Passage 1
I said, “Papi, let me finish school.” None of his other
daughters completed more than three grades. “I still can
do my chores,” I told him. “Pay for me to finish school.”
Line 5
Line 10
He dug his boot into la tierra, the dry earth of
Guanajuato, the state he never left in his entire life.
But he still was the smartest man in Ramblas. He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite, unlike
my mother, who never had an education.
“Why do you want to return to school?” he said,
lowering his eyes to me. “So you can meet a man,
marry, and quit? You want me to pay for that?”
“No, Papi,” I said. “I won’t marry in school and I
promise I’ll graduate.”
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
The wind whistled through the trees. My father saw
a fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank, his thin
shoulders hunched as if a small anchor pulled them. I said
urgently, “Papi,” and I almost grabbed his thick, brown
wrist. In the country, he would stop and talk with any
stranger, my father, no matter what he was doing. He
would talk about the harvest, the weather, the latest family
to lose children to the city, but mostly he would listen.
He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. I
followed behind him in my open-toed sandals, carefully
picking my steps. I knew I had lost his attention, and I
searched around me for something to fill the time I would
spend waiting. But there was nothing and nobody. How
often my brothers, sisters, and I wished he would meet
strangers in town. If he met them in a crowded bus station
or near the plaza, we could occupy ourselves easily. But he
never did. In those places, he walked as the stranger, with
a stone face and rigid posture; he would say he had to get
back to the ranch by noon.
“Buenos días,”* my father said to the fisherman.
Line 35
I took my seat ten feet from them. The two men stared
across the lake and talked. Their voices droned on and
blended with the wind. I daydreamed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 84
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“Marta, come here,” my father called to me.
I lifted myself up and shuffled toward them.
Line 40
“Marta,” my father said, “I have asked Don Tomás what
he thinks about your promise.”
I stared at this fisherman, this stranger, with his empty
fishnet and slack, orange pole, and then back at my father
with wide eyes.
Line 45
“I told him about your promise to stay single, and he
told me, ‘Déjala—let her go.’”
The fisherman looked down at his worn canvas shoes.
“If you want it,” he said to the earth beneath his feet.
Line 50
My father called the fisherman “un testigo,” a witness
to my promise. Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave
his house unmarried.
*Good day
Question:
Which pair of words best characterizes the behavior of Marta’s father in the country and in the town, respectively?
(A) Talkative . . argumentative
(B) Sociable . . reserved
(C) Careless . . dutiful
(D) Uncomfortable . . fearful
(E) Confident . . overbearing
Answer Explanation:
Choice (B) is correct. Marta explains that in the country, her father would “stop and talk to any stranger . . . no matter
what he was doing.” In the town, however, he would “[walk] as the stranger, with a stone face and rigid posture; he would
say he had to get back to the ranch by noon.” Marta explains that her father “never did” meet strangers in town as he did
when he was in the country. Clearly, Marta’s father is sociable, or inclined to seek companionship and to be social, when
he is in the country, but reserved, or keeping himself separate from others, when he is in the town.
Choice (A) is incorrect. Although Marta explains that in the country, her father would “stop and talk to any stranger,” she
does not indicate that he is especially talkative, or full of talk; indeed, she goes on to say that “ mostly he would listen” to
the strangers he stopped to visit. Further, Marta does not suggest that her father is argumentative when he is in the town.
Although he “[walks] as the stranger, with a stone face and rigid posture,” in the town, there is no indication that Marta’s
father argues or gets into disputes with others. In fact, Marta’s father seems to entirely avoid interactions with others when
he is in the town.
Choice (C) is incorrect. One might say that Marta’s father is dutiful, or motivated by a sense of duty, when he is in the
town, because “he would say he had to get back to the ranch by noon.” However, there is no indication that Marta’s father
is careless when he is in the country—or anywhere else; at no point in the passage does Marta suggest that her father is
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 85
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
negligent or doesn’t show care.
Choice (D) is incorrect. There is no indication that Marta’s father is uncomfortable, or uneasy, when he is in the country;
on the contrary, he seems to be at ease in the country. Further, there is no indication that Marta’s father is fearful when he
is in the town. Marta’s father seems to entirely avoid interactions with others when he is in the town, but there is no
suggestion that he behaves this way out of fear.
Choice (E) is incorrect. One might say that Marta’s father is confident when he is in the country; he seems to be at ease
and is confident enough to approach and talk with strangers. However, there is no indication that he is overbearing, or
dominant and overpowering, when he is in the town. Indeed, rather than behaving in a dominating manner, Marta’s father
keeps to himself and avoids interactions with others when he is in the town.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 86
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 39
Difficulty Level: HARD (8 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Understanding Literary Elements
Understand literary elements such as plot, setting and characterization.
This passage is adapted from a short story. The narrator, Marta, recalls an incident from her childhood in rural Mexico.
Passage 1
I said, “Papi, let me finish school.” None of his other
daughters completed more than three grades. “I still can
do my chores,” I told him. “Pay for me to finish school.”
Line 5
Line 10
He dug his boot into la tierra, the dry earth of
Guanajuato, the state he never left in his entire life.
But he still was the smartest man in Ramblas. He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite, unlike
my mother, who never had an education.
“Why do you want to return to school?” he said,
lowering his eyes to me. “So you can meet a man,
marry, and quit? You want me to pay for that?”
“No, Papi,” I said. “I won’t marry in school and I
promise I’ll graduate.”
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
The wind whistled through the trees. My father saw
a fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank, his thin
shoulders hunched as if a small anchor pulled them. I said
urgently, “Papi,” and I almost grabbed his thick, brown
wrist. In the country, he would stop and talk with any
stranger, my father, no matter what he was doing. He
would talk about the harvest, the weather, the latest family
to lose children to the city, but mostly he would listen.
He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. I
followed behind him in my open-toed sandals, carefully
picking my steps. I knew I had lost his attention, and I
searched around me for something to fill the time I would
spend waiting. But there was nothing and nobody. How
often my brothers, sisters, and I wished he would meet
strangers in town. If he met them in a crowded bus station
or near the plaza, we could occupy ourselves easily. But he
never did. In those places, he walked as the stranger, with
a stone face and rigid posture; he would say he had to get
back to the ranch by noon.
“Buenos días,”* my father said to the fisherman.
Line 35
I took my seat ten feet from them. The two men stared
across the lake and talked. Their voices droned on and
blended with the wind. I daydreamed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 87
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“Marta, come here,” my father called to me.
I lifted myself up and shuffled toward them.
Line 40
“Marta,” my father said, “I have asked Don Tomás what
he thinks about your promise.”
I stared at this fisherman, this stranger, with his empty
fishnet and slack, orange pole, and then back at my father
with wide eyes.
Line 45
“I told him about your promise to stay single, and he
told me, ‘Déjala—let her go.’”
The fisherman looked down at his worn canvas shoes.
“If you want it,” he said to the earth beneath his feet.
Line 50
My father called the fisherman “un testigo,” a witness
to my promise. Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave
his house unmarried.
*Good day
Question:
The fisherman’s words in line 47 serve to
(A) offer an alternative course of action
(B) emphasize the wisdom of his advice
(C) undermine the seriousness of the situation
(D) qualify his earlier recommendation
(E) retract a previous statement
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. In lines 44-45, Marta’s father tells her that the fisherman said “‘ Dejala —let her go [to school].”
The fisherman then looks down at his shoes and adds, “If you want it.” These words serve to qualify, or modify, his
earlier recommendation—the fisherman modifies his recommendation that Marta’s father let Marta finish school,
recommending instead that Marta’s father should only let Marta finish school if that is what Marta wants.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In lines 44-45, Marta’s father tells her that the fisherman said “‘ Dejala —let her go [to school].”
The fisherman then looks down at his shoes and adds, “If you want it.” These words do not serve to offer an alternative
course of action; the fisherman is still referring to the same course of action (letting Martha go to school). Rather, the
fisherman’s words modify his earlier recommendation. After saying that Marta’s father should let Marta finish school, he
recommends that Marta’s father should only let Marta finish school if that is what Marta wants.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In lines 44-45, Marta’s father tells her that the fisherman said “‘ Dejala —let her go [to school].”
The fisherman then looks down at his shoes and adds, “If you want it.” These words do not serve to emphasize the
wisdom of his advice, but rather to modify or change his advice. After saying that Marta’s father should let Marta finish
school, he recommends that Marta’s father should only let Marta finish school if that is what Marta wants.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 88
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Choice (C) is incorrect. In lines 44-45, Marta’s father tells her that the fisherman said “‘ Dejala —let her go [to school].”
The fisherman then looks down at his shoes and adds, “If you want it.” These words do not serve to undermine the
seriousness of the situation; there is no indication that the fisherman does not take the situation seriously or that he is
trying to ruin the discussion. Instead, the fisherman’s words simply modify his earlier recommendation. After saying that
Marta’s father should let Marta finish school, he recommends that Marta’s father should only let Marta finish school if
that is what Marta wants.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In lines 44-45, Marta’s father tells her that the fisherman said “‘ Dejala —let her go [to school].”
The fisherman then looks down at his shoes and adds, “If you want it.” The fisherman is qualifying, or modifying, his
earlier recommendation, but he is not going so far as to retract, or take back, a previous statement. He simply adds to his
original advice; after saying that Marta’s father should let Marta finish school, he recommends that Marta’s father should
only let Marta finish school if that is what Marta wants.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 89
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 40
Difficulty Level: EASY (3 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Understanding Literary Elements
Understand literary elements such as plot, setting and characterization.
This passage is adapted from a short story. The narrator, Marta, recalls an incident from her childhood in rural Mexico.
Passage 1
I said, “Papi, let me finish school.” None of his other
daughters completed more than three grades. “I still can
do my chores,” I told him. “Pay for me to finish school.”
Line 5
Line 10
He dug his boot into la tierra, the dry earth of
Guanajuato, the state he never left in his entire life.
But he still was the smartest man in Ramblas. He read
books about Egypt and knew how to handwrite, unlike
my mother, who never had an education.
“Why do you want to return to school?” he said,
lowering his eyes to me. “So you can meet a man,
marry, and quit? You want me to pay for that?”
“No, Papi,” I said. “I won’t marry in school and I
promise I’ll graduate.”
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
The wind whistled through the trees. My father saw
a fisherman with a pole bent over the riverbank, his thin
shoulders hunched as if a small anchor pulled them. I said
urgently, “Papi,” and I almost grabbed his thick, brown
wrist. In the country, he would stop and talk with any
stranger, my father, no matter what he was doing. He
would talk about the harvest, the weather, the latest family
to lose children to the city, but mostly he would listen.
He turned, making his way to the lone fisherman. I
followed behind him in my open-toed sandals, carefully
picking my steps. I knew I had lost his attention, and I
searched around me for something to fill the time I would
spend waiting. But there was nothing and nobody. How
often my brothers, sisters, and I wished he would meet
strangers in town. If he met them in a crowded bus station
or near the plaza, we could occupy ourselves easily. But he
never did. In those places, he walked as the stranger, with
a stone face and rigid posture; he would say he had to get
back to the ranch by noon.
“Buenos días,”* my father said to the fisherman.
Line 35
I took my seat ten feet from them. The two men stared
across the lake and talked. Their voices droned on and
blended with the wind. I daydreamed.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 90
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“Marta, come here,” my father called to me.
I lifted myself up and shuffled toward them.
Line 40
“Marta,” my father said, “I have asked Don Tomás what
he thinks about your promise.”
I stared at this fisherman, this stranger, with his empty
fishnet and slack, orange pole, and then back at my father
with wide eyes.
Line 45
“I told him about your promise to stay single, and he
told me, ‘Déjala—let her go.’”
The fisherman looked down at his worn canvas shoes.
“If you want it,” he said to the earth beneath his feet.
Line 50
My father called the fisherman “un testigo,” a witness
to my promise. Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave
his house unmarried.
*Good day
Question:
The last sentence (lines 49-51) gives the incident significance by indicating that
(A) increasing one’s education will improve one’s prospects in life
(B) finishing one’s education is difficult if one gets married
(C) Marta’s intentions were never acknowledged
(D) Marta was able to accomplish her goals despite her father’s opposition
(E) Marta kept the promise she had made to her father
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. In lines 12-13, as she is trying to convince her father to let her finish school, Marta makes a
promise: “I won’t marry in school and I promise I’ll graduate.” In lines 49-51, Marta states, “Later, I became Father’s
only daughter to complete a high school education, and the only one to leave his house unmarried.” This sentence gives
the incident described in the passage significance because it indicates that Marta did keep the promise she made to her
father—she remained unmarried in school and she graduated.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In the last sentence of the passage, Marta states, “Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave his house unmarried.” Marta clearly did supplement her
education, but there is no mention of improved prospects in her life. Rather than indicating that furthering one’s education
will improve one’s prospects, the last sentence gives the incident described in the passage significance because it indicates
that Marta did keep a promise she made to her father: “I won’t marry in school and I promise I’ll graduate.”
Choice (B) is incorrect. In the last sentence of the passage, Marta states, “Later, I became Father’s only daughter to
complete a high school education, and the only one to leave his house unmarried.” Although Marta’s sisters never
“completed more than three grades” in school, Marta does not indicate that her sisters did not finish their education
because they got married; the last sentence in the passage does not give the incident described in the passage significance
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 91
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
because it indicates that finishing one’s education is difficult if one gets married. Rather, the sentence gives the incident
significance because it indicates that Marta did keep the promise she made to her father—she remained unmarried in
school and she graduated.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In lines 12-13, as she is trying to convince her father to let her finish school, Marta makes a
promise: “I won’t marry in school and I promise I’ll graduate.” In lines 49-51, Marta states, “Later, I became Father’s
only daughter to complete a high school education, and the only one to leave his house unmarried.” This sentence does
not indicate that Marta’s intentions were never acknowledged; on the contrary, it seems that Marta’s intentions (to remain
unmarried in school and to graduate) may have helped persuade her father to let her finish school. The last sentence of the
passage gives the incident described in the passage significance because it indicates that Marta did keep her promise—she
remained unmarried in school and she graduated.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In lines 12-13, as she is trying to convince her father to let her finish school, Marta makes a
promise: “I won’t marry in school and I promise I’ll graduate.” In lines 49-51, Marta states, “Later, I became Father’s
only daughter to complete a high school education, and the only one to leave his house unmarried.” Although it is clear
that Marta accomplished her goals, there is no indication that she did so despite her father’s opposition. Rather, it seems
that Marta’s father made the decision to let her finish school after she promised to remain unmarried in school and to
graduate. The last line gives the incident significance because it indicates that Marta did keep that promise.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 92
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 41
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 93
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
The passage is best described as
(A) an endorsement of strict ethical standards for lawyers
(B) an inquiry into the abuses of clients’ trust committed by lawyers
(C) a proposal for eliminating needless lawsuits
(D) a criticism of the basic structure of the United States legal system
(E) a historical account of the development of jurisprudence in the United States
Answer Explanation:
Choice (D) is correct. This passage is best described as a criticism of the basic structure of the United States legal system.
The author begins by asserting that “the United States legal system isn’t designed to uncover truth” but rather is “about
winning.” He or she goes on to mention complaints about “overly aggressive strategies” and “abuses of the system.” The
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 94
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
author then compares the United States legal system to the legal systems of other countries in order to support the claim
that “the United States legal system of law is more adversarial than others.” The author concludes with a discussion of
arguments made by Carrie Menkel-Meadow, a “critic of the adversarial system.” The author seems to agree with MenkelMeadow’s claims that the adversarial legal system “fails to serve us well” and even “gets in the way of the truth coming
out,” and that “people who pass through our legal system emerge bitter and angry”—which is “dangerous for society.”
Overall, the passage offers an unfavorable critique of the adversarial structure of the United States legal system.
Choice (A) is incorrect. The author of the passage is critical of the basic structure of the United States legal system and
certain strategies used by lawyers, so he or she might support strict ethical standards for lawyers. However, the passage
is not best described as an endorsement of such standards; the author does not explicitly mention ethical standards for
lawyers, let alone endorse, or formally support, any such standards.
Choice (B) is incorrect. When criticizing the United States legal system and certain lawyers, the author does refer to
“abuses of the system.” However, the discussion of lawyers and abuses of the system is limited to only part of the
passage, and the author does not explicitly refer to lawyers’ abuses of clients’ trust. The passage is not primarily focused
on questioning the abuses of clients’ trust committed by lawyers but rather on criticizing the basic structure of the entire
United States legal system.
Choice (C) is incorrect. Although the author of the passage is critical of the way lawsuits are handled in the United States
legal system, he or she does not criticize the actual lawsuits. The passage is not best described as a proposal for
eliminating needless lawsuits; at no point does the author discuss the idea that certain lawsuits are unnecessary. Instead,
the passage is best described as a criticism of the basic structure of the United States legal system.
Choice (E) is incorrect. Although the author of the passage briefly refers to history (“The United States has a long and
proud tradition of using the law to bring about social change . . . and exposing wrongdoing”), he or she does not offer a
historical account of the development of jurisprudence, or the philosophy of law, in the United States. Instead of offering
a detailed history of the development of the United States’ legal system’s philosophy of law, the author primarily focuses
on criticizing the legal system and philosophy of law as it currently exists in the United States. The passage is best
described as a criticism of the basic structure of the United States legal system.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 95
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 42
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 96
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
The author implies that in an ideal legal system, the primary focus would be on
(A) discovering the truth, not winning lawsuits
(B) exposing wrongdoing, not seeking retribution
(C) avoiding prosecution, not mounting a defense
(D) gathering information, not advocating reform
(E) making the best argument, not determining guilt
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. In the first paragraph, the author of the passage states, “We look to the courts to reveal the truth, and
often they do. But the United States legal system isn’t designed to uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about
winning.” The author’s tone indicates that he or she does not approve of a legal system that is focused on “winning.” The
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 97
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
author’s statements clearly imply that he or she considers the ideal legal system to be one in which the main focus is on
discovering and revealing the truth and not on simply winning lawsuits.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, the author of the passage states, “We look to the courts to reveal the truth,
and often they do. But the United States legal system isn’t designed to uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about
winning.” The author is focused on the difference between discovering the truth and simply wanting to win, not on the
exposure of wrongdoing and the seeking of retribution. The author might prize a legal system that is focused on exposing
wrongdoing, but nothing in the passage suggests that he or she would not want the legal system to focus on seeking
retribution.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, the author of the passage states, “We look to the courts to reveal the truth,
and often they do. But the United States legal system isn’t designed to uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about
winning.” The author’s tone indicates that he or she does not approve of a legal system that is focused on “winning.” The
author’s statements clearly imply that he or she considers the ideal legal system to be one in which the main focus is on
discovering and revealing the truth and not on simply winning lawsuits. He or she does not suggest that it is important to
focus on avoiding prosecution rather than on mounting a defense.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, the author of the passage states, “We look to the courts to reveal the truth,
and often they do. But the United States legal system isn’t designed to uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about
winning.” The author is focused on the difference between discovering the truth and simply wanting to win, not on
gathering information and advocating reform. The author might prize a legal system that is focused on gathering
information in the pursuit of truth, but nothing in the passage suggests that he or she would not want the legal system to
focus on advocating reform.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In the first paragraph, the author of the passage states, “We look to the courts to reveal the truth,
and often they do. But the United States legal system isn’t designed to uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about
winning.” The author’s statements clearly imply that he or she disapproves of the focus on simply winning lawsuits;
therefore, he or she would not say that the ideal legal system is one that focuses on making the best argument and not on
determining guilt. On the contrary, it is very likely that the author would say that the ideal legal system is one that focuses
on uncovering truth and accurately determining guilt.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 98
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 43
Difficulty Level: HARD (7 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Organization and Ideas
Understand the organization of a reading passage, and identify the main and supporting ideas.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 99
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
The reference to the “District of Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals” (lines 18-19) serves to
(A) illustrate attempts to reduce the severity of a problem
(B) emphasize the prestige of two powerful legal entities
(C) highlight the close ties between the court system and bar associations
(D) call into question the integrity of two legal institutions
(E) underscore how the quest to win has eclipsed the search for truth
Answer Explanation:
Choice (A) is correct. In lines 18-23 the author states, “The District of Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of
Appeals have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly aggressive strategies commonly referred to as ‘pit bull’ or
‘scorched earth’ tactics. Many complaints address abuses of the system.” The author refers to the District of Columbia Bar
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 100
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
and the New York State Court of Appeals to illustrate attempts to reduce the severity of a problem—he or she indicates
that these entities are implementing rules in order to reduce the overly aggressive strategies and other abuses taking place
in the United States legal system.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In lines 18-23 the author states, “The District of Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of
Appeals have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly aggressive strategies commonly referred to as ‘pit bull’ or
‘scorched earth’ tactics. Many complaints address abuses of the system.” Some might consider the District of Columbia
Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals to be prestigious, but the author does not refer to these legal entities in
order to emphasize their prestige; he or she does not comment on the general opinion of these entities. Instead, the author
refers to these entities and the rules they have suggested and implemented in order to illustrate attempts to reduce overly
aggressive strategies and other abuses in the United States legal system.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In lines 18-23 the author states, “The District of Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of
Appeals have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly aggressive strategies commonly referred to as ‘pit bull’ or
‘scorched earth’ tactics. Many complaints address abuses of the system.” There might be ties between the court system
and bar associations, but the author does not address this; he or she does not refer to the District of Columbia Bar and the
New York State Court of Appeals to highlight the close ties between them. Instead, he or she refers to these entities and
the rules they have suggested and implemented in order to illustrate attempts to reduce overly aggressive strategies and
other abuses in the United States legal system.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In lines 18-23 the author states, “The District of Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of
Appeals have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly aggressive strategies commonly referred to as ‘pit bull’ or
‘scorched earth’ tactics. Many complaints address abuses of the system.” The author does not call into question the
integrity of the District of Columbia Bar or the New York State Court of Appeals; he or she does not refer to these legal
institutions in order to suggest that they might not adhere to a code of moral values. Instead, the author refers to these
institutions and the rules they have suggested and implemented in order to illustrate attempts to reduce overly aggressive
strategies and other abuses in the United States legal system.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In lines 18-23 the author states, “The District of Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of
Appeals have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly aggressive strategies commonly referred to as ‘pit bull’ or
‘scorched earth’ tactics. Many complaints address abuses of the system.” The author does not indicate that either the
District of Columbia Bar or the New York State Court of Appeals is allowing the quest to win eclipse the search for the
truth; in fact, he or she suggests that these legal entities are trying to limit the abuses that go on when the legal system is
focused on winning over discovering the truth. The author refers to these entities in order to illustrate attempts to reduce
these abuses in the United States legal system.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 101
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 44
Difficulty Level: HARD (7 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Author's Craft
Understand how authors use tone, style and writing devices such as metaphor or symbolism.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 102
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
Which of the following best describes how the young lawyer felt about what “The rest of us were saying” (line 31) ?
(A) Disgusted
(B) Embarrassed
(C) Vindictive
(D) Disillusioned
(E) Affronted
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip: “Our
six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they
know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” The author indicates that the young lawyer felt affronted, or
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 103
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
offended and personally insulted, when the others asserted that lawyers should not defend clients they know to be guilty.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” The author indicates that the young lawyer felt affronted,
not disgusted; the lawyer does not seem to be filled with disgust, or revulsion, but feels instead personally insulted and
offended.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” The author indicates that the young lawyer felt affronted,
or offended and personally insulted, not embarrassed; there is no suggestion that the lawyer reacted with self-conscious
distress.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” Although the author indicates that the young lawyer felt
affronted, or offended and personally insulted, he or she does not suggest that the lawyer was vindictive, or disposed to
seek revenge. In fact, the author goes on to say that the lawyer responded by simply arguing her point of view (“Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense”).
Choice (D) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” The author indicates that the young lawyer felt affronted,
not disillusioned; the lawyer seems to have felt offended and personally insulted rather than disappointed and let down.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 104
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 45
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (4 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Determining the Meaning of Words
Use vocabulary skills, context, roots, prefixes, and suffixes to determine the meaning of words.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 105
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
The word “claim” (line 33) most nearly means
(A) requirement
(B) assertion
(C) entitlement
(D) demand
(E) right
Answer Explanation:
Choice (B) is correct. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip: “Our
six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they
know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” In this context, the term “claim” most nearly means
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 106
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
“assertion,” or declaration; the author is saying that the lawyer was offended by the others’ declaration about defending
clients known to be guilty.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” In this context, the term “claim” does not mean
“requirement,” or necessary or required activity. The author does not indicate that the others were repeating a
requirement, or insisting that it is necessary for lawyers avoid defending clients known to be guilty; the author suggests
that the others were simply asserting, or declaring, an opinion.
Choice (C) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” In this context, the term “claim” does not mean
“entitlement,” or something one has a legal right to; the author is referring to an assertion the others made, not to
something to which the lawyer or any of the others had a legal right.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” In this context, the term “claim” does not mean
“demand.” The author does not indicate that the others were requesting urgently and with authority that lawyers not
defend clients known to be guilty; rather, they seem to have been simply asserting, or declaring, an opinion about lawyers
and such clients.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In the fourth paragraph, the author recounts an incident that took place during a camping trip:
“Our six-person group included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients
they know to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive.” In this context, the term “claim” does not mean “right”;
the author is referring to an assertion the others made, not to a power or privilege to which the lawyer or any of the others
was entitled.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 107
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 46
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (6 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 108
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
The passage suggests that compared to the American system, the German and French legal systems would be
(A) more likely to resolve disputes expeditiously
(B) as likely to entail wrangling over procedure
(C) as likely to infringe on the rights of the accused
(D) less likely to provide court-appointed counsel
(E) less likely to encourage distortion of the facts
Answer Explanation:
Choice (E) is correct. The author discusses the German and French legal systems in the fifth paragraph of the passage. He
or she writes, “In the German and French systems, fact gathering is controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge
does most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 109
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
a system . . . provides an illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary system: to manipulate facts to the
advantage of their side.” The author suggests that the German and French legal systems, which are not adversarial, would
be less likely to encourage distortion of the facts than would the American system, which is adversarial. He or she
suggests that the American system might drive lawyers to manipulate, or distort, the facts in a case in order to strengthen
their own argument, while the German and French systems seem to give control to impartial judges rather than lawyers
who are focused on “winning.”
Choice (A) is incorrect. The author discusses the German and French legal systems in the fifth paragraph of the passage.
He or she writes, “In the German and French systems, fact gathering is controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge
does most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system . . . provides an illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary system: to manipulate facts to the
advantage of their side.” The author does not suggest that the German and French legal systems would be more likely to
resolve disputes expeditiously, or promptly and efficiently, than would be the American system; he or she is discussing
the degree to which legal systems encourage manipulation or distortion of the facts in a case, not the speed with which
disputes are settled.
Choice (B) is incorrect. The author discusses the German and French legal systems in the fifth paragraph of the passage.
He or she writes, “In the German and French systems, fact gathering is controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge
does most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system . . . provides an illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary system: to manipulate facts to the
advantage of their side.” The author does not suggest that the German and French legal systems would be as likely to
wrangle over procedure as would the American system; he or she is discussing the degree to which legal systems
encourage manipulation or distortion of the facts in a case, not the extent to which there is bickering over procedure or
protocol in each system.
Choice (C) is incorrect. The author discusses the German and French legal systems in the fifth paragraph of the passage.
He or she writes, “In the German and French systems, fact gathering is controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge
does most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system . . . provides an illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary system: to manipulate facts to the
advantage of their side.” The author does not suggest that the German and French legal systems are as likely to infringe on
the rights of the accused in a case as would be the American system; in fact, the author suggests that the German and
French systems would be less likely to infringe on an accused person’s rights because they involve more impartial
judgment and less manipulation or distortion of facts.
Choice (D) is incorrect. The author discusses the German and French legal systems in the fifth paragraph of the passage.
He or she writes, “In the German and French systems, fact gathering is controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge
does most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system . . . provides an illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary system: to manipulate facts to the
advantage of their side.” The author does not suggest that the German and French legal systems would be less likely to
provide court-appointed counsel than would the American system; the author makes no mention of courts appointing
lawyers. The author is discussing the degree to which legal systems encourage manipulation or distortion of the facts in a
case, not the likelihood of courts appointing lawyers to represent anyone.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 110
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 47
Difficulty Level: MEDIUM (6 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 111
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
Lines 48-49 (“to manipulate . . . side”) refer to what the author most likely believes to be
(A) a universal approach
(B) a baffling phenomenon
(C) a troubling practice
(D) an unorthodox strategy
(E) an unanticipated consequence
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. In the fifth paragraph the author asserts that in an adversarial legal system, attorneys have a
particular goal: “to manipulate facts to the advantage of their side.” In other words, the author asserts that attorneys in an
adversarial system feel they must manipulate the facts in a case in order to strengthen their side and win. It is clear that the
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 112
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
author considers this a troubling practice; he or she is critical of lawyers who choose to distort facts instead of seeking to
“uncover truth.”
Choice (A) is incorrect. In the fifth paragraph the author asserts that in an adversarial legal system, attorneys have a
particular goal: “to manipulate facts to the advantage of their side.” In other words, the author asserts that attorneys in an
adversarial system feel they must manipulate the facts in a case in order to strengthen their side and win. The author does
not indicate that this is a universal approach. He or she is referring to the behavior of lawyers in an adversarial legal
system (such as America’s), not the behavior of attorneys in every legal system; he or she does not even argue that all
American attorneys take this approach.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In the fifth paragraph the author asserts that in an adversarial legal system, attorneys have a
particular goal: “to manipulate facts to the advantage of their side.” In other words, the author asserts that attorneys in an
adversarial system feel they must manipulate the facts in a case in order to strengthen their side and win. Although the
author clearly disagrees with the practice of manipulating facts, he or she does not indicate that this behavior is a baffling
phenomenon, or a puzzling occurrence. Even though he or she does not approve of this behavior, the author seems to
understand why some attorneys feel they must behave this way—because they are in an adversarial system.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In the fifth paragraph the author asserts that in an adversarial legal system, attorneys have a
particular goal: “to manipulate facts to the advantage of their side.” In other words, the author asserts that attorneys in an
adversarial system feel they must manipulate the facts in a case in order to strengthen their side and win. Rather than
indicating that this is an unorthodox, or unconventional or unusual, strategy, the author implies that many lawyers in an
adversarial system follow this strategy.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In the fifth paragraph the author asserts that in an adversarial legal system, attorneys have a
particular goal: “to manipulate facts to the advantage of their side.” In other words, the author asserts that attorneys in an
adversarial system feel they must manipulate the facts in a case in order to strengthen their side and win. The author does
not indicate that this behavior is an unanticipated, or unexpected consequence; indeed, his or her argument seems to be
that in an adversarial legal system (such as America’s), such behavior is encouraged and expected.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 113
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
Critical Reading: Question 48
Difficulty Level: EASY (3 on a scale of 1-9)
Skill Category: Reasoning and Inferencing
Understand assumptions, suggestions and implications in reading passages and draw informed conclusions.
This passage was adapted from a 1998 book written by a social scientist who is an expert on miscommunication.
Passage 1
Line 5
Line 10
Line 15
Line 20
Line 25
Line 30
Line 35
Line 40
We look to courts to reveal the truth, and often they do.
But the United States legal system isn’t designed to
uncover truth—at least not directly. It’s about winning.
The American legal system is a prime example of trying to
solve problems by pitting two sides against each other and
letting them slug it out in public. It reflects and reinforces
our assumption that truth emerges when two polarized,
warring extremes are set against each other.
The United States has a long and proud tradition of
using the law to bring about social change (in the Civil
Rights movement, for example) and exposing wrongdoing
(for example, that tobacco companies knew about
and concealed the link between smoking and lung cancer).
We regard the law as a cherished route to truth and justice,
and it often leads us there.
But just as some journalists are expressing concern
about developments in their profession, some lawyers
are expressing concern about theirs. The District of
Columbia Bar and the New York State Court of Appeals
have recommended or adopted codes to curb overly
aggressive strategies commonly referred to as “pit bull”
or “scorched earth” tactics. Many complaints address
abuses of the system. And some are questioning the
system itself, especially its adversary character. Lawsuits
are adversarial by nature. But the United States system
of law is more adversarial than others, and some in the
legal profession believe that its adversary structure causes
problems at the same time that it attempts to solve them.
In August, some friends and I were sitting around
a nighttime campfire. Our six-person camping group
included one young lawyer. The rest of us were saying
that it is wrong for lawyers to defend clients they know
to be guilty. The lawyer found this claim offensive. Everyone
is entitled to the best possible defense, she argued.
This is the basis of the adversary system of law: justice
lies in having advocates of the two sides make their best
case. The American adversary system is driven not by
a search for truth but by a search for the best defense.
Nothing can be more partisan than our legal system, in
which facts are uncovered and revealed by lawyers who
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 114
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Line 45
Line 50
Line 55
Line 60
Line 65
Line 70
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
are advocates for the two parties in dispute. How else could
it be? In the German and French systems, fact gathering is
controlled by a judge, not by attorneys. The judge does
most of the questioning of witnesses, and the judge’s goal
is to determine what happened, as nearly as possible. Such
a system surely has its own liabilities, but it provides an
illuminating contrast to the goal of attorneys in the adversary
system: to manipulate facts to the advantage of their
side.
A leading critic of the adversary system is Carrie
Menkel-Meadow, professor of law at Georgetown
University. She shows many ways that the adversary
system fails to serve us well even if there is no miscarriage
of justice. For one thing, it encourages lawyers to
overstate claims, puffing up their side to persuade. This
gets in the way of the truth coming out. For another,
there has been a rash of complaints against attorneys who
suppress evidence. This, Menkel-Meadow maintains, is
the inevitable result of requiring lawyers to do everything
they can to win for their client. Yet another weakness goes
to the heart of the system: in many civil disputes there is
some right on both sides. In those cases, a winner-take-all
result cannot be fair, yet that is the type of resolution the
system is designed to seek.
Menkel-Meadow illustrates another way the adversary
system can obstruct justice. Those who recoil from open
conflict—whether because of cultural experience, individual temperament, or simply a realistic appreciation
of the toll it takes to be involved in a lawsuit—do not
get relief for injustice. Perhaps most important, MenkelMeadow says, many people who pass through our legal
system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for
society, which depends upon the trust of its citizens for
the institutions making up that society to work.
Question:
Menkel-Meadow’s argument in lines 70-74 suggests most directly that if the American legal system continues unchanged,
then
(A) judges will need to take over some of the roles of attorneys
(B) lawyers will become more interested in collecting fees than in winning cases
(C) numerous citizens will lose confidence in a central social institution
(D) advocates for judicial reform will intensify their efforts
(E) the German and French systems will gain adherents around the world
Answer Explanation:
Choice (C) is correct. In lines 70-74 the author shares one of Menkel-Meadow’s arguments: “Perhaps most important . . .
many people who pass through our legal system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for society, which depends
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 115
PSAT/NMSQT ®
Questions and Answer Explanations 2010-2011
WEDNESDAY FORM
upon the trust of its citizens for the institutions making up that society to work.” In other words, Menkel-Meadow feels
that it is dangerous for people to lose trust in the legal system, because citizens must have faith in the legal system and
other social institutions in order for the society to function. This argument suggests most directly that if the American
legal system does not change and an increasing number of people emerge from the system bitter and angry, numerous
citizens will lose confidence in a central social institution—the legal system.
Choice (A) is incorrect. In lines 70-74 the author shares one of Menkel-Meadow’s arguments: “Perhaps most important . .
. many people who pass through our legal system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for society, which
depends upon the trust of its citizens for the institutions making up that society to work.” In other words, Menkel-Meadow
feels that it is dangerous for people to lose trust in the legal system, because citizens must have faith in the legal system
and other social institutions in order for the society to function. This argument does not suggest directly that if the
American legal system does not change, judges will need to take over some of the roles of attorneys; Menkel-Meadow is
not discussing judges’ and attorneys’ roles, but rather focusing on the importance of citizens’ trust in the legal system and
other social institutions.
Choice (B) is incorrect. In lines 70-74 the author shares one of Menkel-Meadow’s arguments: “Perhaps most important . .
. many people who pass through our legal system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for society, which
depends upon the trust of its citizens for the institutions making up that society to work.” In other words, Menkel-Meadow
feels that it is dangerous for people to lose trust in the legal system, because citizens must have faith in the legal system
and other social institutions in order for the society to function. This argument does not suggest directly that if the
American legal system does not change, lawyers will become more interested in collecting fees than in winning cases;
Menkel-Meadow is not discussing lawyers and their fees, but rather focusing on the importance of citizens’ trust in the
entire legal system and other social institutions.
Choice (D) is incorrect. In lines 70-74 the author shares one of Menkel-Meadow’s arguments: “Perhaps most important . .
. many people who pass through our legal system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for society, which
depends upon the trust of its citizens for the institutions making up that society to work.” In other words, Menkel-Meadow
feels that it is dangerous for people to lose trust in the legal system, because citizens must have faith in the legal system
and other social institutions in order for the society to function. This argument does not suggest directly that if the
American legal system does not change, advocates for judicial reform will intensify their efforts. Menkel-Meadow might
hope that advocates for reform will increase their efforts, but she does not state or imply that they certainly will if the
current system remains unchanged.
Choice (E) is incorrect. In lines 70-74 the author shares one of Menkel-Meadow’s arguments: “Perhaps most important . .
. many people who pass through our legal system emerge bitter and angry, and this is dangerous for society, which
depends upon the trust of its citizens for the institutions making up that society to work.” In other words, Menkel-Meadow
feels that it is dangerous for people to lose trust in the legal system, because citizens must have faith in the legal system
and other social institutions in order for the society to function. This argument does not suggest directly that if the
American legal system does not change, the German and French systems will gain adherents around the world; MenkelMeadow’s argument focuses on societal aspects of adversarial systems and does not address other types of systems.
©The College Board 2011. For the sole use of the person for whom this report has been provided. Not for duplication or distribution.
Page 116