Modern/Influential Thinkers Passage (grammar/writing)

The answer is B. “Towards the end of the last century” is an introductory phrase–something that can’t stand on its own as a sentence but that introduces the main body of the sentence. Introductory phrases should be followed by a comma. We can confirm this understanding by noting that choices C and D are impossible because the punctuation is not separating two independent clauses (remember the Clause Test). Choice A would result in too many phrases and clauses piled on top of each other without a pause or break in the wording.

The answer is C. This is a tone/style question, meaning that we need to match the appropriate style of wording (formal or informal) and the general phrasing with what we’ve seen from the author. It’s a good idea in these cases to read the entire paragraph to a get a sense of how the author writes. We might say that John Paul II writes formally but not stiffly, with clear phrasing. We should be able to look at the choices and disallow those that don’t sound like they could fit in this paragraph.

Usually one of the wrong answers to a tone/style question has so many big words that it sounds quite awkward; choice B is that example here, so we can eliminate it. But the other two wrong answers are on the other extreme; they sound too casual for this writer. Certainly, choice D would not fit well in this author’s mouth, and choice A also sounds a bit too conversational when compared with the right answer. Words like “factor” and “process” fit well in this context.

The answer is A. Which word fits best in this sentence? We need to follow the tone as John Paul II talks about a new society with its contrasts. On the one hand, it brought “new freedoms,” but the end of the sentence is clearly relating some disadvantages to the new society, as shown in the ominous word “threat”. The fact that “injustice” is connected by “and” to the underlined portion tells us we’re looking for a similar word, so choices B and C can be seen as too positive in tone for this answer. A “salutation”, although it comes from the Latin for “salvation”, is just a greeting in modern parlance; nothing negative about that! Servitude, a word that points to a forced status of bondage and abasement, is the word we’re looking for here.

The answer is D. Among our choices for this part of speech question, choice A offers an adjective, choice B a noun, choice C also a noun (or possibly a verb), and choice D an adverb. The underlined word modifies “taken shape,” which is a verbal form. Adverbs are what we want when a verb is modified: the “ly” word is the one!

The answer is C. This is a long sentence with many parts and multiple verbs. Earlier in the sentence we find the verb form “had appeared”, but there is no “had lacked” for us to choose here. A better clue is the verb that follows the idea of lacking: “were determined.” That part of the sentence is connected to this part with an “and”, so we have parallel structure. This means we should make our form of “lack” consistent with “were determined”. It appears, then, that we need a past tense form, and choice C is our only option for that.

The answer is D. This is a question that requires much thought. All of the choices might sound fine to you in a narrow context, but we have to ask what the author is discussing in the paragraph as a whole to find something that fits. In this paragraph, the author is describing a difficult situation for the laborer, where his options are extremely limited and he is a slave to economic conditions. The immediately preceding phrase helps us especially: “bought and sold on the market.” This is economic language, and something immediately following such a phrase should continue the economic theme. “Bought and sold” might make us think about slaves and lean toward choice B, but that doesn’t quite fit the economic idea and seems an oddly specific comparison in this case.

The other choices all have something to do with economics, so let’s consider them one by one. Choice A sounds good at first glance because there is certainly exploitation of the worker going on here. However, the rest of the sentence described the identical situation in more detail; it would be redundant to mention a possibly insufficient wage here. Choice C has an interesting economic idea of a laborer bidding on his own labor, but 1) there is no sign in the context that something like this is happening and 2) this is too optimistic an idea to fit with this pessimistic paragraph. Choice D works best since we’re talking about an economic “market”; such a market is precisely the place where something like the law of supply and demand would rule the day.

The answer is A. As always with a transition question, we should first follow the flow of the logic, particularly to see if there’s a contrast of ideas. But there’s no such contrast here; the dreary situation detailed before this portion continues afterward so that the worker cannot “even” be sure of being able to sell his labor. If anything, things are worse than they were before. Choice B doesn’t make sense, and “still” would be a contrast word as well in this phrasing, so goodbye to that also.

Does “consequently” make sense here? Does the first sentence of the paragraph cause something about the second? The word “even” seems to suggest that’s not the case; rather, there is an intensifying of the negative description from the first sentence to the second. A mild word like “moreover”, which basically just means “and”, works just fine.

The answer is B. Resolving this question requires evaluating the phrasing of each choice, seeking to avoid wordiness while making sure the key ideas are maintained. As is typical for a “clear and concise” question, one answer simply takes out too much information; that’s choice D in this case. All the other choices talk about linking a situation to something political or governmental while noting that this political structure has already been mentioned. We can find some redundancy in choice C; among other problems, it uses both “aforementioned” and “described above”. Of the remaining choices, notice how much shorter choice B is than answer A; it gets more directly to the point and avoids unnecessarily flowery language like “radical differentiation.”

The answer is A. Let’s consider the whole sentence: “Thus the prevailing political theory of the time sought to promote total economic freedom by appropriate laws, or, conversely, by a deliberate lack of any intervention.” We might think we should start with the Clause Test here, but if we use the DIRECT method smartly and consider the answers, we’ll see that a comma is our only choice for punctuation (no semicolon or period offered). Do we need a comma and, if so, do we need two?

The key word in this sentence is “conversely”. When we have a transition word or phrase such as this (or “however”, “for example”, etc.), some punctuation is required. The question is whether the sentence could stand on its own without “conversely”. Reading the sentence through while omitting “conversely” reveals a full grammatical sentence. The Handlebar Rule tells us that commas need to surround the word. One comma won’t do.

The answer is D. Questions that underline long selections with multiple phrases often concern the order of the phrases. In these cases, we must address the structure of the sentence, to make sure the phrases modify each other appropriately, as well as the logical movement of the thought throughout. Since this portion is part of a larger sentence, it is especially important to notice that the author has just called attention to an encyclical discussing “the essential bond between freedom and truth,” and since the portion is proceeded by the phrase “so that,” we attend to the logical coherence within the sentence, in particular the ongoing relationship between freedom and truth.

A helpful principle in cases like this is that a sentence’s main subject and verb should be delayed as little as possible. The CLT will prompt you to reject an answer like choice C, which starts with subordinate clauses and doesn’t arrive at the main verb “would refuse” until late in the sentence. Choice B isn’t much better, with its opening phrase “falling into arbitrariness.” It’s hard to tell what that phrase refers to, and the amount of modifying words and phrases after “freedom” also leads to confusion. To distinguish between choices A and D, we look for the clear logical relationship between freedom and truth, as suggested by the interposition of those two terms earlier in the sentence. Choice D does this best, stating clearly how freedom becomes disconnected from truth, then proceeding to reveal the result: submission to vile passions and (ultimately) self-destruction. In addition, the end of choice A, “having been submitted to,” suffices to eliminate that answer, as such a phrase would be a very awkward way to end a sentence.