Analogy Questions in SAT Reading Strategies and Tips

Analogy Questions in SAT Reading Strategies and Tips SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Though direct analogy questions were eliminated along with the old SAT Verbal Reasoning section in 2005, analogy questions remain in place in a more abstract form in the Critical Reading section. In this article, I’ll show you what analogy questions look like, the best way to approach them, and some step by step examples for solving them with real questions from the SAT! What Is An Analogy Question? Before we learn how to solve these types of questions, we need to learn how to spot them in the first place. Analogy questions will ask you to make comparisons.They might ask you to compare a relationship between two things in the passage with a relationship between two things in the answer choices, or they might just ask for the answer choice that is most similar to something in the passage. Here’s an example of an analogy question: Which of the following most resembles the relationship between "black hole activity" and "star formation" (lines -12) as described in the passage? A. A volcanic eruption on one continent results in higher rainfall totals on another continent.B. Industrial emissions in one region lead to an increase in airborne pollutants in adjacent regions.C. A drought in a wilderness area causes a significant loss of vegetation in that area.D. Decreased oil production in one country results in higher gas prices in oil-dependent countries.E. Overfishing in a gulf leads to an increase in the population of smaller aquatic organisms. In this case, you would have to examine the cause and effect relationship between black hole activity and star formation described in the passage and see which of the five choices is most similar to that relationship. Analogy questions are a subset of inference questions because they require you to understand a relationship or condition in the passage and then take it one step further to infer the similarity of something NOT mentioned in the passage. How Do I Solve Analogy Questions? You’re going to have to take a couple of mental steps to solve analogy questions (which is why they can be one of the more confusing question types). Step 1: Read the question carefully. This is important because some analogy questions will ask you for the relationship that is LEAST like the one in the passage.Make sure you know what you’re looking for! Step 2: Understand the relationship or condition in the passage. Go back and read the relevant section of the passage.If you think it will help you to remember the nature of the relationship or condition mentioned in the question, sum it up in simpler terms.Make sure you fully understand what specifically you’re going to be comparing to the potential answer choices. Step 3: Go through the answer choices, break them down, and eliminate the duds. Look at each relationship or condition presented in the answer choices, and see if it is functionally the same as what you found in the passage.Remember that the point of an analogy question is that the concrete details are different, but the core relationship or condition is a match between the passage and the answer choice.If this is not the case, eliminate it (unless it’s a LEAST question, of course). Keep going with this until you have only one correct answer! Ok, that sounds doable. Let’s try a sample question. Time to get our feet wet. Good thing we painted our toes "College Board blue". Analogies in Action Now for our first real SAT analogy question! Here it is: Which most resembles the "irony" mentioned in line 34? A. A worker moving to a distant state to take a job, only to be fired without warningB. An executive making an important decision, only to regret it laterC. An athlete earning a starting position on a good team, only to quit midseasonD. A student studying for a major exam, only to learn that it has been postponedE. A person purchasing an expensive umbrella, only to lose it on the first rainy day First, let’s make sure we read the question carefully - looks like this one is pretty straightforward. No LEASTs here.We are clearly looking for the answer choice that is most similar to a condition in the passage. Ok, now we will refer to the passage.Here’s the sentence we need to reference: As she wrote a final letter on her typewriter - she did hate letting the old machine go - Georgia did considerable philosophizing about the irony of working for things only to the end of giving them up. What is the irony mentioned in the passage?Looks like it's â€Å"working for things only to the end of giving them up.† So: we are going to be looking for an answer that demonstrates working hard for something but later deciding to abandon it. Now we can go through the answer choices to find our winner! For these answer choices, I thought it was helpful to break them down into two parts to show exactly why each incorrect choice was eliminated. Choice A: A worker moving to a distant state to take a job, only to be fired without warning A worker moving to a distant state to take a job - Ok, the first part of this answer sounds promising. That's definitely an example of someone putting in effort for something. Now let's look at the second part. Only to be fired without warning - No, that’s not going to fit. Being fired doesn’t mean you gave up, it means someone else gave up on you. This doesn’t match the irony described in the passage, so let's eliminate it! Choice B: An executive making an important decision, only to regret it later An executive making an important decision - Eh, that doesn’t really fit with working towards something. Only to regret it later - Regret isn't the same as giving up, so this part doesn't work either. This doesn’t match the irony described in the passage either - get rid of it! Choice C: An athlete earning a starting position on a good team, only to quit in midseason An athlete earning a starting position on a good team - Ok, that’s definitely working towards something. Only to quit in midseason - Yes, that’s absolutely giving up. Looks like it matches the irony described in the passage.This choice works! Choice D: A student studying for a major exam, only to learn that it has been postponed A student studying for a major exam - Yes, this part makes sense as working towards something. Only to learn that it has been postponed - No, this isn't the same as giving up because something happened that was outside of the student’s control. It doesn’t match the irony described in the passage, so cross it out! Choice E: A person purchasing an expensive umbrella, only to lose it on the first rainy day A person purchasing an expensive umbrella - Nope, that's not really an example of working towards a goal unless your priorities are seriously weird. Only to lose it on the first rainy day - That’s not giving up, this person is just frivolous AND careless. I’m glad they lost their umbrella. This doesn’t match the irony described in the passage either - eliminate it! Great, so we have Choice C as our answer! "O Umbrella, why did you leave me? O cruel vagaries of fate!" - quote from the poor sap in choice E Let's try another one. The first sample analogy question that I showed you about black holes is pretty tough, but I think we're ready for it. Here it is again: Which of the following most resembles the relationship between "black hole activity" and "star formation" (lines -12) as described in the passage? A. A volcanic eruption on one continent results in higher rainfall totals on another continent.B. Industrial emissions in one region lead to an increase in airborne pollutants in adjacent regions.C. A drought in a wilderness area causes a significant loss of vegetation in that area.D. Decreased oil production in one country results in higher gas prices in oil-dependent countries.E. Overfishing in a gulf leads to an increase in the population of smaller aquatic organisms. Ok, first we need to read the question carefully. We are going to be comparing two relationships for this question, and there's no LEAST, so we want to find the answer choice that is most similar to the relationship in the passage. Now let's read the lines from the passage. Here's our relevant excerpt: Accordingly, astronomers long assumed that supermassive holes, let alone their smaller cousins, would have little effect beyond their immediate neighborhoods. So it has come as a surprise over the past decade that black hole activity is closely intertwined with star formation occurring farther out in the galaxy. What's the relationship between black hole activity and star formation? They are "closely intertwined," implying a cause-effect relationship of some kind, although the star formation is occurring very far away from the black hole activity. So we are looking for a vague cause and effect relationship between two events that are occurring far apart from one another. Now let's examine our answer choices to see which one matches up with this relationship. Choice A: A volcanic eruption on one continent results in higher rainfall totals on another continent. This answer seems to work. The volcanic eruption and the higher rainfall totals are occurring in two separate regions, just like the black hole activity and star formation. This answer also demonstrates a cause and effect relationship that is somewhat ambiguous - though the events are related, they do not directly lead into one another. The nature of this relationship is the same as that of the relationship between black hole activity and star formation. Choice B:Industrial emissions in one region lead to an increase in airborne pollutants in adjacent regions. The key to detecting this wrong answer is the word "adjacent". Black hole activity and star formation in the passage are occurring very far away from each other, not in nearby regions of the galaxy. This answer also describes a direct causal relationship that makes straightforward logical sense - that's different from the vague nature of the relationship in the passage. Get rid of this one! Choice C:A drought in a wilderness area causes a significant loss of vegetation in that area. This answer is incorrect because both events are occurring in the same area. This makes it even more clearly wrong than Choice B, where the events happened in adjacent regions. This answer also describes a very logical relationship that demonstrates obvious cause and effect between drought and loss of vegetation. This is not the same as the relationship between black hole activity and star formation. Eliminate this one too! Choice D:Decreased oil production in one country results in higher gas prices in oil-dependent countries. Though the two events in this relationship are occurring in regions that are far away from one another, this answer still doesn't work. This relationship demonstrates a direct and logical cause and effect chain of events. This was not the case with black hole activity and star formation. Cross it out! Choice E:Overfishing in a gulf leads to an increase in the population of smaller aquatic organisms. This once again refers to a scenario where both events are occurring in the same place, whereas a key feature of the relationship in the passage was that black hole activity and star formation happened far away from each other. This one's wrong too! Looks like Choice A is our answer! That was a really tough one, but if you understood why we eliminated the four incorrect answers, you shouldn't have to worry about any super challenging analogy questions sneaking up on you on the SAT. You've already got the skills to beat them. Your brain must be like a black hole for SAT knowledge! Summary Analogy questions (in a less direct form) are still a part of the SAT Critical Reading section.These questions will ask you to make a comparison between a condition or relationship in a reading passage and a different condition or relationship that’s not referenced in the passage. When you see an analogy question, remember to: Read the question carefully. Go back to the passage and make sure you fully understand the condition or relationship you are being asked to compare. Read each of the answer choices and break them down so that you can make a direct comparison to what’s in the passage. Eliminate four choices, and find the one that works! Remember, you can do it! What's Next? Want more skills-focused SAT Reading articles? Start with these articles on sentence completion questions and vocab-in-context questions, and check back in the next week for more! What's the best way to get information out of a passage on SAT Reading? Find out the best way to read the passage and what's actually on SAT Reading. Worried that vocab is going to trip you up? Don't worry - we can help. Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points? Check out our best-in-class online SAT prep program. We guarantee your money back if you don't improve your SAT score by 160 points or more. Our program is entirely online, and it customizes what you study to your strengths and weaknesses. If you liked this Reading lesson, you'll love our program.Along with more detailed lessons, you'll get thousands of practice problems organized by individual skills so you learn most effectively. We'll also give you a step-by-step program to follow so you'll never be confused about what to study next. Check out our 5-day free trial:

USS Kentucky (BB-66) in World War II

USS Kentucky (BB-66) in World War II USS Kentucky (BB-66) was an unfinished battleship that was started during World War II (1939-1945). Originally intended to be the second ship of the Montana-class of battleship, Kentucky was re-ordered in 1940 as the sixth and final ship of the US Navys Iowa-class of battleships. As construction moved forward, the US Navy found that it had a greater need for aircraft carriers than battleships. This led to designs to convert Kentucky into a carrier. These plans proved impractical and work resumed on the battleship but at a slow pace. Still incomplete at the end of the war, the US Navy then considered a variety of projects for converting Kentucky into a guided-missile battleship. These also proved fruitless and in 1958 the ship was sold for scrap.      A New Design In early 1938, work began on a new battleship type at the request of US Navy General Board chief Admiral Thomas C. Hart. First seen  as a larger version of the earlier  South Dakota-class, the new battleships were to carry twelve 16 guns or nine 18 guns. As the design evolved, the armament changed to nine 16 guns. In addition, the class anti-aircraft complement underwent several alterations  with the majority of its 1.1 weapons being replaced with 20 mm and 40 mm guns. Funding for the new ships came in May with the passage of the Naval Act of 1938. Dubbed the  Iowa-class, building  of the lead ship,  USS  Iowa  (BB-61), was assigned to the New York Navy Yard. Laid down in 1940,  Iowa  was to be the first of four battleships in the class. Fast Battleships Though hull numbers BB-65 and BB-66 were originally intended to be the first two ships of the new, larger  Montana-class, the approval of the Two Ocean Navy Act in July 1940 saw them re-designated as two additional  Iowa-class  battleships named USS  Illinois  and USS  Kentucky  respectively. As fast battleships, their 33-knot speed would permit them to serve as escorts for the new  Essex-class  carriers that were joining the fleet. Unlike the preceding  Iowa-class ships (Iowa,  New Jersey,  Missouri, and  Wisconsin),  Illinois  and  Kentucky  were to utilize all-welded construction which reduced weight while enhancing hull strength. Some conversation was also had as to whether to retain the heavy armor arrangement initially planned for the  Montana-class. Though this would have improved the battleships protection, it would also have greatly lengthened construction time.   As a result, standard  Iowa-class armor was ordered.   Ã‚   USS Kentucky(BB-66) - Overview Nation:  United StatesType:  BattleshipShipyard:  Norfolk Naval ShipyardLaid Down:  March 7, 1942Fate:  Scrapped, October 31, 1958 Specifications (Planned) Displacement:  45,000 tonsLength:  887.2 ft.Beam:  108 ft., 2 in.Draft:  28.9  ft.Speed:  33  knotsComplement:  2,788 (Planned) Guns 9 Ãâ€" 16 in./50 cal Mark 7 guns20 Ãâ€" 5 in./38 cal Mark 12 guns80 Ãâ€" 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns49 Ãâ€" 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons Construction The second ship to carry the name USS Kentucky, the first being the Kearsarge-class USS Kentucky (BB-6) commissioned in 1900, BB-65 was laid down at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard on March 7, 1942.   Following the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, the US Navy recognized that the need for additional aircraft carriers and other vessels superseded that for more battleships. As a result, construction of Kentucky was halted and on June 10, 1942, the bottom section of the battleship was launched to make room for Landing Ship, Tank (LST) construction. The next two years saw designers explore options for converting Illinois and Kentucky into carriers. The finalized conversion plan would have resulted in two carriers similar in appearance to the Essex-class. In addition to their air wings, they would have carried twelve 5 guns in four twin and four single mounts. Reviewing these plans, it was soon found that the converted battleships aircraft capacity would be less than the Essex-class and that the construction process would take longer than building a new carrier from scratch. As a result, it was decided to complete both vessels as battleships but very low priority was given to their construction.   Moved back to the slipway on December 6, 1944, construction of  Kentucky slowly resumed through 1945. With the end of the war, discussion ensued regarding completing the vessel as an anti-aircraft battleship. This led to work halting in August 1946.   Two years later, construction again moved forward though using the original plans. On January 20, 1950,  work ceased and Kentucky was moved from its dry dock to make space for repair work on Missouri.    Plans, But No Action Moved to the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Kentucky, which had been completed to its main deck, served as a supply hulk for the reserve fleet from 1950 to 1958. During this period, several plans were advanced with the idea of converting the vessel into a guided missile battleship. These moved forward and in 1954 Kentucky was renumbered from BB-66 to BBG-1. Despite this, the program was cancelled two years later. Another missile option called for the mounting of two Polaris ballistic missile launchers in the ship.   As in the past, nothing came from these plans. In 1956, after Wisconsin suffered a collision with the destroyers USS Eaton, Kentuckys bow was removed and used to repair the other battleship. Though Kentucky Congressman William H. Natcher attempted to block the sale of Kentucky, the US Navy elected to strike it from the Naval Vessel Register on June 9, 1958. That October, the hulk was sold to the Boston Metals Company of Baltimore and scrapped. Prior to disposal, its turbines were removed and used aboard the fast combat support ships USS Sacramento and USS Camden.