AP 영어학 예상문제 v4 — Part A & B Updated 2026-04-21

Part A: Syntax (Q1~Q15) | Part B: Logical Fallacies (Q16~Q35) | 전체 객관식

먼저 풀이 → 정답 보기 펼치기

Part A: Syntax (Q1~Q15)

Type A: 짧은 문제 (Q1~Q8)

Q1 Clause 식별 1.2점

문제: Which of the following CORRECTLY identifies the underlined clause?

"Since Helen came home, her mother has been happy."

① Independent clause connected by a coordinating conjunction

② Noun clause functioning as the subject of the sentence

③ Dependent clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction

④ Relative clause modifying "her mother"

⑤ Adverb clause modifying "Helen"

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Clause 식별 — 독립절/종속절 구분

정답 근거: "Since"는 subordinating conjunction이며, "Since Helen came home"은 독립적으로 의미를 갖지 못하는 dependent clause이다.

오답:

  • ① Independent clause가 아님 — 단독으로 완전한 의미 불가
  • ② Noun clause가 아님 — 주어 역할을 하지 않음
  • ④ Relative clause가 아님 — 관계대명사(who, which, that) 없음
  • ⑤ Adverb clause이긴 하나, "Helen"이 아닌 주절 전체를 수식함
Q2 Sentence Type 1.5점

문제: Which sentence type BEST describes the following?

"Albert enlisted in the Army, and Robert, who was his older brother, joined him a day later."

① Simple sentence

② Compound sentence

③ Complex sentence

④ Compound-complex sentence

⑤ Two independent clauses joined by a semicolon

정답: ④

RJ 패턴: Sentence Type 판별

정답 근거: 두 개의 independent clause ("Albert enlisted..." + "Robert...joined him")가 "and"로 연결되고, "who was his older brother"라는 relative(dependent) clause가 포함되어 compound-complex sentence이다.

오답:

  • ① Simple sentence는 독립절 하나만 포함
  • ② Compound sentence는 종속절이 없어야 함
  • ③ Complex sentence는 독립절이 하나만 있어야 함
  • ⑤ 세미콜론이 아닌 coordinating conjunction "and"로 연결됨
Q3 Dependent Clause 유형 1.5점

문제: In the sentence below, what type of dependent clause is the underlined portion?

"It is essential that people research the cultures of those whom they propose to meet in the future."

① Adverb clause expressing cause

② Relative clause modifying "cultures"

③ Noun clause functioning as the real (extraposed) subject

④ Noun clause functioning as the direct object

⑤ Adverb clause expressing condition

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Dependent clause 유형 분류

정답 근거: "It"은 가주어(expletive/dummy subject)이고, "that people research..."가 진주어(real/extraposed subject)로 기능하는 noun clause이다. AP 표준 용어로 "real (extraposed) subject"로 분류한다.

오답:

  • ① Adverb clause가 아님 — 부사적 수식 관계 없음
  • ② Relative clause가 아님 — "that"이 관계대명사가 아닌 접속사
  • ④ Direct object가 아님 — 'It is essential' 구문에는 타동사가 없음 (be동사 + 형용사)
  • ⑤ 조건절이 아님
Q4 Rhetorical Sentence 1.5점

문제: Which of the following is a periodic sentence?

① Sitting in her lounge chair, sunglasses shielding her eyes, head tilting to the side, her book lying open on her lap, Susan patiently waited.

② Susan patiently waited, sitting in her lounge chair, sunglasses shielding her eyes, head tilting to the side, her book lying open on her lap.

③ The lake looks beautiful in the moonlight.

④ He opened the door, and he found the missing paper.

⑤ I was very upset because my dog ran away.

정답: ①

RJ 패턴: Rhetorical sentence 구분 — periodic vs. loose(cumulative)

정답 근거: Periodic sentence는 main clause가 문장 끝에 위치하여 문법적 완결이 마지막에 이루어진다. ①에서 "Susan patiently waited"가 문장 끝에 온다.

오답:

  • ② Loose(cumulative) sentence — main clause가 먼저 오고 수식어가 뒤따름
  • ③ Simple sentence — periodic/loose 구분 불가
  • ④ Compound sentence
  • ⑤ Complex sentence (loose 형태)
Q5 Parallel Structure 1.2점

문제: Which rhetorical device is PRIMARY in the following passage?

"Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce."

① Inversion

② Anaphora

③ Parallel structure

④ Rhetorical question

⑤ Antithesis

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 수사적 장치 식별

정답 근거: "explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts"는 동일한 문법 구조(동사+목적어)가 반복되는 parallel structure이다.

오답:

  • ① Inversion(도치)이 아님 — 정상 어순
  • ② Anaphora는 동일 단어가 절 시작에 반복될 때 적용
  • ④ 의문문이 아님
  • ⑤ Antithesis는 대조적 아이디어의 병치 — 여기선 대조가 아닌 나열
Q6 Modifier 오류 1.8점

문제: Which of the following contains a dangling modifier?

① Constance, armed with only a backpack and a strong will, set out to conquer the wilds of Alaska.

② Carrying all of our supplies for miles, the campground was a welcome sight.

③ The wind gusting, Constance returned home.

④ A ruler of the Italian city-state Mantua, Isabella d'Este actively supported many great artists.

⑤ Isabella d'Este, an active supporter of many great artists, was a ruler of Mantua.

정답: ②

RJ 패턴: Dangling modifier 식별

정답 근거: "Carrying all of our supplies"의 의미상 주어는 사람이어야 하나, 문장의 주어는 "the campground"(무생물)이다. 분사구문의 주어와 주절의 주어가 불일치하여 dangling modifier이다.

오답:

  • ① 분사구문 "armed with..."의 주어와 주절 주어 "Constance"가 일치
  • ③ Absolute phrase — 독립적 주어 "The wind"가 명시됨
  • ④ Appositive phrase — 주절 주어 "Isabella d'Este"와 일치
  • ⑤ Appositive phrase — 정상적 구조
Q7 Known-New Contract 1.5점

문제: The "Known-New Contract" in syntax refers to the principle that:

① New information should always appear at the beginning of a sentence for emphasis.

② A sentence should contain only known information to maintain cohesion.

③ Known (given) information comes first in the subject, and new information appears in the predicate.

④ Every sentence must introduce at least two new pieces of information.

⑤ The predicate should repeat information from the previous sentence.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Syntax 용어 정의

정답 근거: 수업 자료에서 "known(given) information comes first, generally filling the subject slot, and the new information in the predicate"라고 명시되어 있다.

오답:

  • ① 반대 — known이 먼저 오고 new가 뒤에 옴
  • ② 새로운 정보가 없으면 문장의 의미 전달 불가
  • ④ 개수 제한에 대한 언급 없음
  • ⑤ 반복이 아니라 새로운 정보를 predicate에 배치
Q8 Sentence Type 판별 1.8점

문제: Which of the following is a compound sentence?

① Although it rained last night, we decided to take the path that led through the woods.

② The lake looks beautiful in the moonlight.

③ Because Mr. Roberts was a talented teacher, he was voted teacher of the year, and his students prospered.

④ He found the missing paper; therefore, he was satisfied.

⑤ I knew the actress who played that part in the 1980s.

정답: ④

RJ 패턴: Sentence type 판별

정답 근거: 세미콜론과 conjunctive adverb "therefore"로 연결된 두 개의 independent clause로 구성된 compound sentence이다.

오답:

  • ① Complex sentence — "Although" (subordinating conjunction) + relative clause
  • ② Simple sentence — 독립절 하나
  • ③ Compound-complex sentence — "Because" 종속절 + 두 독립절
  • ⑤ Complex sentence — "who" relative clause 포함

Type D: 긴 지문 기반 (Q9~Q15)

Q9 Syntax 분석 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.2점
Cool was I and logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute—I was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a dynamo, precise as a chemist's scales, as penetrating as a scalpel. And—think of it!—I only eighteen.

문제: Which of the following CORRECTLY identifies the syntactic features used in this passage?

① The passage uses only simple sentences to convey a sense of calm rationality.

② The dashes function as semicolons connecting compound sentences.

③ The passage opens with inversion ("Cool was I"), uses parallel structure in the series of adjectives and similes, and employs dashes for dramatic interjection.

④ The passage is a single periodic sentence that withholds its main clause until the end.

⑤ Anaphora is the dominant device, with "I was" repeated at the start of each clause.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 지문 기반 Syntax 요소 복합 식별

정답 근거: "Cool was I" = inversion (S-V 도치). "Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute" = parallel adjectives. "as powerful as a dynamo, precise as a chemist's scales, as penetrating as a scalpel" = parallel similes. "And—think of it!—" = dash를 이용한 dramatic interjection.

오답:

  • ① Simple sentence만 있지 않음 — 다양한 구조가 사용됨
  • ② Dashes는 semicolon 역할이 아닌 삽입구(interjection)로 사용됨
  • ④ 단일 periodic sentence가 아님 — 여러 문장으로 구성
  • ⑤ "I was"가 모든 절 앞에 반복되지 않음 — anaphora 아님
Q10 Syntax 효과 분석 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.2점
Beautiful she was. She was not yet of pin-up proportions, but I felt that time would supply the lack. She already had the makings. Gracious she was. By gracious I mean full of graces. She had an erectness of carriage, an ease of bearing, a poise that clearly indicated the best of breeding. ... Intelligent she was not. In fact, she veered in the opposite direction.

문제: The narrator's repeated use of inverted sentence structure ("Beautiful she was," "Gracious she was," "Intelligent she was not") BEST serves to:

① Create a tone of romantic admiration and emotional vulnerability.

② Demonstrate the narrator's poor command of standard English grammar.

③ Establish a systematic, list-like evaluation of Polly, reinforcing the narrator's calculating and clinical approach to choosing a wife.

④ Show that the narrator is imitating Polly's informal speech patterns.

⑤ Signal a shift from logical analysis to emotional confession.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Syntax 효과(rhetorical effect) 분석

정답 근거: 도치(inversion)와 반복(repetition)의 조합으로, 화자가 Polly를 체계적으로 "평가항목"처럼 나열하고 있다. 이는 화자의 cerebral, calculating 성격을 강조한다. "I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated, entirely cerebral reason"과 일치.

오답:

  • ① 감정적 취약함이 아닌 냉정한 분석적 태도
  • ② 의도적 수사적 장치이지, 문법 실수가 아님
  • ④ Polly의 말투("Gee," "terrif")와 화자의 말투는 대조적
  • ⑤ 감정적 고백으로의 전환이 아닌 논리적 평가의 연속
Q11 Syntax 비교 — Sentence Combining 3.5점
Version A: I was very upset. The Fourth of July fireworks were especially loud. My dog ran away. The animal control officer made his morning rounds. He found my dog in another part of town. I was relieved. Version B: I was very upset. Because the Fourth of July fireworks were especially loud, my dog ran away; but when the animal control officer made his morning rounds, he found my dog in another part of town. I was relieved.

문제: Which statement BEST describes the DIFFERENT rhetorical effects of Version A and Version B?

① Version A is more grammatically correct; Version B contains run-on sentences.

② Version A establishes cause-and-effect clearly; Version B obscures the logical connections.

③ Version A presents events as disconnected facts using simple sentences, while Version B uses subordination to show causal and temporal relationships between the events.

BOTH versions produce identical rhetorical effects since they contain the same information.

⑤ Version B weakens the emotional impact by making the sentences too long and complex.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 두 버전 비교 — Syntax의 수사적 효과 차이 분석

정답 근거: Version A는 모두 simple sentence로 사건을 나열만 한다. Version B는 "Because" (cause), "when" (time) 등 subordinating conjunction을 사용하여 사건 간 인과관계와 시간관계를 명시한다. 수업 자료에서 이 비교를 직접 다루고 있다.

오답:

  • ① 두 버전 모두 문법적으로 올바름
  • ② 반대 — Version A가 인과관계를 보여주지 않음
  • ④ 동일한 정보라도 syntax 구조에 따라 수사적 효과가 다름
  • ⑤ 오히려 Version B가 관계를 명확히 하여 이해를 돕는다
Q12 Syntax + Repetition — Dickens 3.2점
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair...

문제: Which combination of syntactic elements does Dickens employ in this passage?

① Inversion and rhetorical question

② Periodic sentence structure and loose modification

③ Anaphora ("it was"), parallel structure, and antithesis (best/worst, wisdom/foolishness, belief/incredulity)

④ Simple sentences connected only by semicolons

⑤ Known-New Contract with progressive information layering

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 복합적 수사적 장치 식별

정답 근거: "It was"가 모든 절 앞에 반복 = anaphora. 동일한 "it was the [noun] of [noun]" 구조 반복 = parallel structure. "best/worst," "wisdom/foolishness," "belief/incredulity" 등 대조 = antithesis.

오답:

  • ① 도치나 수사 의문문 없음
  • ② Periodic sentence가 아님 — main clause가 끝에 오지 않음
  • ④ 세미콜론이 아닌 콤마로 연결됨
  • ⑤ Known-New Contract과는 무관한 구조
Q13 Punctuation 효과 — Wuthering Heights 3.5점
"May she wake in torment!" he cried, with frightful vehemence, stamping his foot, and groaning in a sudden paroxysm of ungovernable passion. "Why, she's a liar to the end! Where is she? Not there—not in heaven—not perished—where? Oh! You said you cared nothing for my sufferings! And I pray one prayer—I repeat it till my tongue stiffens—Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living! You said I killed you—haunt me, then! ..."

문제: Which statement about the syntactic features of this passage is NOT CORRECT?

① The exclamation points convey Heathcliff's mounting emotional intensity and anguish.

② The dashes create fragmented, interrupted speech that mirrors psychological turmoil.

③ The rhetorical questions ("Where is she?") reflect desperate searching rather than expecting an answer.

④ The participial phrases ("stamping his foot," "groaning") add physical immediacy to the emotional outburst.

⑤ The passage is composed entirely of loose (cumulative) sentences that create a calm, reflective tone.

정답: ⑤

RJ 패턴: NOT correct 유형 — Punctuation과 Syntax 효과 분석

정답 근거: 이 passage는 느낌표, 대시, 의문문 등이 뒤섞인 격정적 독백이다. "calm, reflective tone"과는 정반대이며, loose sentence로 일관되지도 않는다.

오답:

  • ① 맞음 — 느낌표는 감정적 강도를 전달
  • ② 맞음 — 대시는 파편화된 사고를 반영
  • ③ 맞음 — 수사 의문문은 절박한 탐색을 표현
  • ④ 맞음 — 분사구문은 물리적 행동을 동시에 묘사
Q14 Syntax 분석 — "Now Cut That Out" 3.2점
Which of the following stories would be too biased for schools to allow on tests? (1) Overcoming daunting obstacles, a blind man climbs Mount McKinley; (2) Dinosaurs roam the Earth in prehistoric times; (3) An Asian-American girl, whose mother is a professor, plays checkers with her grandfather and brings him pizza. As you probably guessed, all three stories are deeply biased. (1) Emphasis on a "daunting" climb implies that blindness is some sort of disability, when it should be viewed as just another personal attribute, like hair color. Besides, mountain climbing stories are examples of "regional bias," unfair to readers who live in deserts, cities, and rural areas. (2) Dinosaurs are a no-no—they imply acceptance of evolutionary theory. (3) Making the girl's mother a professor perpetuates the "model minority" myth that stereotypes Asian-Americans.

문제: What is the PRIMARY syntactic strategy the author uses to structure the opening of this passage, and what is its rhetorical effect?

① Periodic sentence structure to build suspense before revealing the answer.

② Inversion of subject and predicate to create a formal, academic register.

③ A rhetorical question followed by numbered parallel examples, creating an ironic setup where seemingly innocent stories are revealed to be "biased" under absurd guidelines.

④ Anaphora with repeated "Emphasis on" to systematically dismantle each example.

⑤ Stream-of-consciousness narrative to convey the author's confusion about bias standards.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 지문 기반 수사적 전략 분석

정답 근거: Leo는 먼저 "Which of the following...?"이라는 rhetorical question으로 독자의 관심을 끈 후, (1)(2)(3) numbered parallel examples를 나열한다. "As you probably guessed, all three stories are deeply biased"로 아이러니를 폭로하여 교육 검열의 부조리를 부각한다.

오답:

  • ① Periodic sentence가 아님 — 의문문 + 나열 구조
  • ② 도치 없음 — 정상 어순
  • ④ "Emphasis on"이 반복적으로 사용되지 않음
  • ⑤ 의식의 흐름이 아닌 논리적 구성
Q15 Syntax 효과 — "Now Cut That Out" 3.5점
No, no, no! Ravitch warns that these guidelines amount to a full-blown form of "censorship at the source" in schools and "something important and dangerous" that few people know about. She blames both the religious right and the multicultural feminist left. The right objects to evolution, magic and witchcraft, gambling, nudity, suicide, drug use, and stories about disobedient children. The left objects to "sexist" fairy tales, Huckleberry Finn, religion, smoking, junk food, guns and knives, and what some guidelines call "activities stereotyping" (blacks as athletes, men playing sports or working with tools, women cooking or caring for children).

문제: The syntactic structure of the two sentences beginning with "The right objects to..." and "The left objects to..." BEST achieves which rhetorical effect?

① It creates a periodic structure that delays the main point until the end of the paragraph.

② The parallel structure and lengthy enumeration on BOTH sides emphasize that censorship comes equally from opposing political camps, reinforcing Ravitch's "both sides" critique.

③ It uses anaphora to build emotional sympathy for the religious right's position.

④ The compound-complex sentences slow the reader down to create a meditative, reflective tone.

⑤ It employs antithesis to argue that the left's objections are more valid than the right's.

정답: ②

RJ 패턴: Parallel structure의 수사적 효과 분석

정답 근거: "The right objects to..." / "The left objects to..."는 동일한 문법 구조로 양쪽 모두의 objections를 나열한다. 긴 열거(enumeration)는 양측의 과도한 검열을 동등하게 비판하는 Ravitch의 주장("She blames both the religious right and the multicultural feminist left")을 문법적으로 구현한다.

오답:

  • ① Periodic structure 아님 — main point가 앞에 제시됨
  • ③ 특정 측에 대한 동정이 아닌 양측 동등 비판
  • ④ Meditative tone이 아닌 비판적/풍자적 tone
  • ⑤ 한쪽이 더 타당하다는 주장이 아닌 양측 동등 비판

Part B: Logical Fallacies (Q16~Q35)

Type A: 짧은 문제 (Q16~Q20)

Q16 Fallacy 정의 매칭 1.2점

문제: Which fallacy involves assuming that because event B follows event A, A must have caused B?

① Cum hoc

② Hasty Generalization

③ Post hoc

④ Slippery Slope

⑤ False Dichotomy

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Fallacy 정의 매칭

정답 근거: Post hoc = "after this, therefore because of this." B가 A 이후에 발생했으므로 A가 B의 원인이라고 가정하는 오류.

오답:

  • ① Cum hoc는 동시 발생(correlation)을 인과로 착각 — "with this, therefore because of this"
  • ② Hasty Generalization은 부족한 표본으로 일반화
  • ④ Slippery Slope는 연쇄 반응의 극단적 귀결을 주장
  • ⑤ False Dichotomy는 선택지를 두 가지로 제한
Q17 Fallacy 구분 1.5점

문제: What is the key DIFFERENCE between Hasty Generalization and Sweeping Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter)?

① Hasty Generalization uses statistics; Dicto Simpliciter does not.

② Hasty Generalization moves from too few specific cases to a broad rule; Dicto Simpliciter applies a broad rule to a specific case without considering exceptions.

③ Hasty Generalization is always intentional; Dicto Simpliciter is always accidental.

④ They are identical fallacies with different Latin names.

⑤ Dicto Simpliciter involves emotional appeal; Hasty Generalization does not.

정답: ②

RJ 패턴: 헷갈리는 Fallacy 쌍 구분

정답 근거: Hasty Generalization: specific → general (부족한 표본으로 일반화). Dicto Simpliciter: general → specific (일반 규칙을 예외 없이 특정 사례에 적용). 방향이 정반대.

오답:

  • ① 통계 사용 여부와 무관
  • ③ 의도성은 fallacy 구분 기준이 아님
  • ④ 서로 다른 논리적 오류
  • ⑤ 감정적 호소는 Ad Misericordiam 등의 특성
Q18 Fallacy 빈칸 1.5점

문제: A fallacy in which the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from the original argument, is called:

① Straw Man

② Begging the Question

③ Equivocation

④ Red Herring

⑤ Stacking the Deck

정답: ④

RJ 패턴: Fallacy 정의 빈칸

정답 근거: Red Herring = "goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake."

오답:

  • ① Straw Man은 상대 주장을 약화시킨 버전으로 공격
  • ② Begging the Question은 결론을 전제에 포함(순환논증)
  • ③ Equivocation은 단어의 의미를 미끄러지듯 바꿈
  • ⑤ Stacking the Deck는 유리한 증거만 제시
Q19 Fallacy 구분 — Appeal 1.8점

문제: What is the key DIFFERENCE between Appeal to Authority and Appeal to False Authority?

① Appeal to Authority uses expert testimony; Appeal to False Authority uses common sense.

② Appeal to Authority always involves politicians; Appeal to False Authority involves scientists.

③ Appeal to Authority cites a genuine expert but offers no other supporting evidence; Appeal to False Authority cites someone who is not an expert in the relevant field.

④ They are the same fallacy described from different perspectives.

⑤ Appeal to False Authority is always intentional deception; Appeal to Authority is never fallacious.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 헷갈리는 Appeal 유형 구분

정답 근거: Appeal to Authority: 실제 전문가이지만 그 전문가의 말만으로 결론을 내림. Appeal to False Authority: 해당 분야의 전문가가 아닌 사람을 권위자로 내세움 (예: 회계사가 대통령 탄핵을 예측).

오답:

  • ① Common sense와 무관
  • ② 특정 직업과 무관
  • ④ 서로 다른 오류
  • ⑤ Appeal to Authority도 fallacy가 될 수 있음
Q20 Fallacy 정의 1.5점

문제: In the fallacy of Equivocation, the arguer:

① Presents only evidence that supports their conclusion while ignoring contrary evidence.

② Uses emotional language to distract from the logical weakness of the argument.

③ Slides between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

④ Attacks the opponent's character instead of addressing the argument.

⑤ Creates a false either/or scenario to force a predetermined conclusion.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Fallacy 정의 매칭

정답 근거: Equivocation = "sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument." 예: "right thing to do" (올바른) → "right to our money" (권리).

오답:

  • ① Stacking the Deck의 정의
  • ② Red Herring 또는 Appeal to Emotion에 가까움
  • ④ Ad Hominem의 정의
  • ⑤ False Dichotomy의 정의

Type D: 긴 지문 기반 (Q21~Q35)

Q21 Fallacy 식별 — 시나리오 3.2점
A city council member argues: "If we allow a skateboard park to be built downtown, soon teenagers will be loitering everywhere. Then graffiti and vandalism will increase. Crime rates will skyrocket, property values will plummet, and eventually the entire downtown area will become a dangerous slum that no one wants to visit. We must reject this proposal immediately."

문제: Which fallacy is BEST illustrated in this argument?

① False Dichotomy

② Hasty Generalization

③ Slippery Slope

④ Post hoc

⑤ Straw Man

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 긴 시나리오 기반 Fallacy 식별

정답 근거: 스케이트보드 공원 건설 → 청소년 배회 → 그래피티/반달리즘 → 범죄율 폭증 → 부동산 가치 폭락 → 위험한 슬럼. 충분한 근거 없이 연쇄 반응의 극단적 귀결을 주장하는 Slippery Slope이다.

오답:

  • ① 두 가지 선택지만 제시하는 것이 아님
  • ② 소수 사례에서 일반화하는 것이 아님
  • ④ 시간 순서의 인과 혼동이 아닌, 가정적 연쇄 반응
  • ⑤ 상대 주장을 왜곡하지 않음
Q22 Fallacy 식별 — 시나리오 3.2점
During a school board debate on whether to extend recess by 15 minutes, a parent stands up and says: "People who oppose longer recess just want kids to be miserable and hate school. They think children should sit at desks like robots all day with no break whatsoever. Obviously, such an extreme position is wrong, and we should extend recess."

문제: This argument BEST exemplifies which fallacy?

① Ad Hominem

② Red Herring

③ Begging the Question

④ Straw Man

⑤ Appeal to Popularity

정답: ④

RJ 패턴: Straw Man 식별

정답 근거: 반대측의 실제 주장(15분 연장에 반대)을 "아이들을 로봇처럼 하루 종일 앉히고 싶어한다"는 극단적 버전으로 왜곡한 후 그것을 공격한다. 이것이 Straw Man의 전형이다.

오답:

  • ① Ad Hominem은 상대의 인격을 공격 — 여기서는 주장 자체를 왜곡
  • ② Red Herring은 다른 주제로 화제 전환
  • ③ Begging the Question은 순환 논증
  • ⑤ Appeal to Popularity는 다수의 동의를 근거로 함
Q23 Fallacy 식별 — 헷갈리는 쌍 3.5점
A newspaper editorial states: "Studies show that communities with more ice cream trucks also have higher crime rates. Data consistently shows that wherever ice cream sales go up, so does violent crime. Clearly, ice cream trucks are contributing to the rise in criminal activity in our neighborhoods."

문제: This argument commits which fallacy?

① Post hoc (false cause)

② Cum hoc (correlation as causation)

③ Hasty Generalization

④ Sweeping Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter)

⑤ Weak Analogy

정답: ②

RJ 패턴: Post hoc vs. Cum hoc 헷갈리는 쌍

정답 근거: 아이스크림 판매와 범죄율이 동시에 증가(correlation)하는 것을 인과관계로 착각한다. 이는 "with this, therefore because of this" = Cum hoc이다. (실제 공통 원인은 더운 날씨.) Post hoc는 시간적 순서(A 후에 B)를 인과로 착각하는 것.

오답:

  • ① Post hoc는 "A 이후에 B 발생 → A가 원인" — 여기서는 동시 발생
  • ③ 소수 사례에서 일반화하는 것이 아닌 상관관계를 인과로 오인
  • ④ 일반 규칙을 특정 사례에 적용하는 것이 아님
  • ⑤ 유추를 사용하지 않음
Q24 Fallacy 식별 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.2점
"Polly," I said when next we sat beneath our oak, "tonight we will not discuss fallacies." "Aw, gee," she said, disappointed. "My dear," I said, favoring her with a smile, "we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched." "Hasty Generalization," said Polly brightly. "I beg your pardon," said I. "Hasty Generalization," she repeated. "How can you say that we are well matched on the basis of only five dates?"

문제: Polly's identification of the narrator's fallacy is CORRECT because:

① The narrator applies a general rule about compatibility to a specific case without evidence.

② The narrator uses emotional language to win Polly's sympathy.

③ The narrator draws a broad conclusion ("we are well matched") from an inadequate sample (only five dates).

④ The narrator attacks Polly's character instead of presenting evidence.

⑤ The narrator creates a false choice between dating him and being alone.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: "Love is a Fallacy" 인용 기반 Fallacy 확인

정답 근거: Hasty Generalization = "making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate." 다섯 번의 데이트만으로 "well matched"라는 결론을 내리는 것은 부족한 표본에 기반한 성급한 일반화이다.

오답:

  • ① Dicto Simpliciter(일반→특수)의 설명 — 여기서는 특수→일반
  • ② Ad Misericordiam의 설명 — 이 장면에서는 해당 없음
  • ④ Ad Hominem의 설명
  • ⑤ False Dichotomy의 설명
Q25 Fallacy 식별 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.5점
"Polly, I love you. You are the whole world to me, the moon and the stars and the constellations of outer space. Please, my darling, say that you will go steady with me, for if you will not, life will be meaningless. I will languish. I will refuse my meals. I will wander the face of the earth, a shambling, hollow-eyed hulk." There, I thought, folding my arms, that ought to do it. "Ad Misericordiam," said Polly.

문제: Polly correctly identifies this as Ad Misericordiam. Which of the following BEST explains why this is also an example of irony in the story?

① The narrator is genuinely heartbroken, making Polly's response cruel and unexpected.

② The narrator never actually taught Polly about Ad Misericordiam.

③ The narrator, who prides himself on being logical and taught Polly to identify fallacies, is now unknowingly committing the very fallacies he taught her to recognize.

④ Polly is using the fallacy incorrectly — the narrator's appeal is actually a valid emotional argument.

⑤ The irony lies in the fact that Ad Misericordiam is not a real fallacy.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Fallacy 식별 + 문학적 아이러니 분석

정답 근거: 화자는 스스로를 "cool," "logical," "calculating"이라 자부하며 Polly에게 논리적 오류를 가르쳤다. 그런데 정작 사랑 고백에서 감정에 호소(Ad Misericordiam)하는 오류를 범한다. 이것이 이 이야기의 핵심적 상황적 아이러니(situational irony)이다.

오답:

  • ① 화자의 사랑 고백은 계산적이지 진심이 아님
  • ② 화자는 두 번째 밤에 Ad Misericordiam을 가르쳤음
  • ④ Polly의 식별은 정확함 — 화자는 논리적 자격 대신 동정에 호소
  • ⑤ Ad Misericordiam은 실제 논리적 오류
Q26 Fallacy 식별 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.2점
I chuckled with amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons well. "My dear," I said, patting her hand in a tolerant manner, "five dates is plenty. After all, you don't have to eat a whole cake to know that it's good." "False Analogy," said Polly promptly. "I'm not a cake. I'm a girl."

문제: Polly's identification of False Analogy is CORRECT because the narrator's argument:

① Uses an authority figure to validate the claim about dating.

② Appeals to popular opinion about how many dates are sufficient.

③ Compares tasting cake to evaluating human compatibility — two situations that are not relevantly alike.

④ Draws a general conclusion from a single example of cake-eating.

⑤ Sets up a false choice between eating cake and going on dates.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: "Love is a Fallacy" 인용 기반 — False Analogy(Weak Analogy) 식별

정답 근거: Weak/False Analogy = "the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects." 케이크 맛보기와 사람과의 적합성 평가는 본질적으로 다른 상황이다. Polly가 "I'm not a cake. I'm a girl."이라고 핵심을 정확히 짚는다.

오답:

  • ① Appeal to Authority가 아님
  • ② Appeal to Popularity가 아님
  • ④ Hasty Generalization의 설명
  • ⑤ False Dichotomy의 설명
Q27 Fallacy 식별 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.2점
"Well, Polly," I said, forcing a smile, "you certainly have learned your fallacies." "You're darn right," she said with a vigorous nod. "And who taught them to you, Polly?" "You did." "That's right. So you do owe me something, don't you, my dear? If I hadn't come along you never would have learned about fallacies." "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact," she said instantly.

문제: The narrator's argument ("If I hadn't come along you never would have learned about fallacies") commits Hypothesis Contrary to Fact because:

① He generalizes from a single instance of teaching to a broad conclusion.

② He attacks Polly's intelligence instead of presenting a logical argument.

③ He starts with a premise that is not true (a hypothetical past) and draws definitive conclusions from it — Polly might have learned about fallacies from someone else or through other means.

④ He appeals to pity by suggesting Polly would have been ignorant without him.

⑤ He creates a false choice between owing him a debt and being ungrateful.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Hypothesis Contrary to Fact 식별

정답 근거: 화자는 "내가 없었다면 넌 fallacy를 절대 배우지 못했을 것"이라는 반사실적 가정에서 확정적 결론을 도출한다. Polly는 다른 수업, 책, 또는 다른 사람을 통해 배울 수 있었다. 이것이 Hypothesis Contrary to Fact의 정의와 정확히 일치한다.

오답:

  • ① Hasty Generalization이 아님
  • ② Ad Hominem이 아님
  • ④ Ad Misericordiam과는 다름 — 여기서는 빚을 지웠다는 논리
  • ⑤ False Dichotomy가 아님
Q28 Fallacy 식별 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.5점
"You can't go with him, Polly. He's a liar. He's a cheat. He's a rat." "Poisoning the Well," said Polly, "and stop shouting. I think shouting must be a fallacy too."

문제: Polly correctly identifies Poisoning the Well. This fallacy is closely related to which other fallacy, and what feature distinguishes them?

① Red Herring — both change the subject, but Poisoning the Well does so before the opponent speaks.

② Ad Hominem — both attack the person rather than the argument, but Poisoning the Well specifically discredits an opponent before they have a chance to present their case.

③ Straw Man — both distort the opponent's position, but Poisoning the Well uses emotional language.

④ False Dichotomy — both limit options, but Poisoning the Well adds a personal attack.

⑤ Begging the Question — both assume what they need to prove, but Poisoning the Well does so publicly.

정답: ②

RJ 패턴: 관련 Fallacy 구분 — Poisoning the Well vs. Ad Hominem

정답 근거: Poisoning the Well은 Ad Hominem의 특수 형태로, 상대가 발언하기 전에 미리 상대의 신뢰성을 훼손하는 것이다. 소설에서도 "My opponent is a notorious liar. You can't believe a word that he is going to say"라는 예시로 설명되었다. 화자가 Petey를 "liar, cheat, rat"로 공격하여 Polly가 Petey의 말을 믿지 못하게 하려는 것이다.

오답:

  • ① Red Herring은 화제를 전환하는 것이지 사람을 공격하지 않음
  • ③ Straw Man은 주장을 왜곡하는 것이지 사람을 공격하지 않음
  • ④ False Dichotomy는 선택지를 제한하는 것
  • ⑤ Begging the Question은 순환 논증
Q29 Fallacy 식별 — 시나리오 3.2점
A student argues in a debate: "Plagiarism is deceitful because it is dishonest."

문제: This argument commits which fallacy?

① Red Herring

② Ad Hominem

③ Equivocation

④ Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

⑤ Stacking the Deck

정답: ④

RJ 패턴: Begging the Question 식별 — Handout 연습문제 스타일

정답 근거: "deceitful"과 "dishonest"는 사실상 같은 의미이다. 결론("plagiarism is deceitful")을 전제("it is dishonest")에서 같은 말로 반복하는 순환 논증이다. 수업 Handout에서 이 예문이 직접 출제되었다.

오답:

  • ① 화제를 전환하지 않음
  • ② 사람을 공격하지 않음
  • ③ 단어의 의미를 바꾸지 않음 — 같은 의미를 반복
  • ⑤ 한쪽 증거만 제시하는 것이 아님
Q30 Fallacy 식별 — 시나리오 3.2점
In a town hall meeting, a resident argues: "Water fluoridation affects the brain. Citywide, students' test scores began to drop five months after fluoridation began."

문제: This argument BEST exemplifies which fallacy?

① Cum hoc

② Slippery Slope

③ Post hoc (false cause)

④ Hasty Generalization

⑤ Appeal to False Authority

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Post hoc vs. Cum hoc 구분 — Handout 연습문제 스타일

정답 근거: 수돗물 불소화 "이후(after)" 성적이 하락했으므로 불소화가 원인이라고 결론짓는다. "after this, therefore because of this" = Post hoc. 핵심 단서는 "five months after fluoridation began"이라는 시간적 순서이다.

오답:

  • ① Cum hoc는 동시 발생의 상관관계를 인과로 착각 — 여기서는 시간적 선후 관계
  • ② 극단적 연쇄 결과를 예측하지 않음
  • ④ 일반화가 아닌 인과관계 오류
  • ⑤ 권위자를 인용하지 않음
Q31 Fallacy 식별 — 시나리오 3.5점
A political commentator states: "Senator Williams claims we should invest more in renewable energy. But Williams was caught cheating on his taxes three years ago. He also went through a messy divorce. Why should we listen to anything this man has to say about energy policy?"

문제: This argument commits which fallacy?

① Poisoning the Well

② Ad Hominem

③ Straw Man

④ Red Herring

⑤ Post hoc

정답: ②

RJ 패턴: Ad Hominem vs. Poisoning the Well 구분

정답 근거: Williams의 에너지 정책 주장에 대해, 탈세와 이혼이라는 인격적 결함을 공격하여 그의 주장 자체를 무시하려 한다. 이는 "against the man" = Ad Hominem이다. Poisoning the Well과 달리, Williams가 이미 주장을 제시한 후에 공격하고 있다.

오답:

  • ① Poisoning the Well은 상대가 발언하기 전에 미리 신뢰를 훼손
  • ③ 주장을 왜곡하지 않고, 사람을 공격함
  • ④ 에너지 정책과 무관한 인격 공격이지만, 화제 전환보다 인격 공격이 주된 전략
  • ⑤ 시간적 인과 관계 오류가 아님
Q32 Fallacy 식별 — 헷갈리는 쌍 3.2점
A television commercial announces: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money."

문제: This argument commits which fallacy?

① Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam)

② Begging the Question

③ Equivocation

④ Red Herring

⑤ Stacking the Deck

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: Equivocation 식별 — Handout 원문 예시

정답 근거: "right"이라는 단어가 두 가지 다른 의미로 사용된다. 첫 번째 "right" = morally correct(도덕적으로 올바른). 두 번째 "right" = entitlement(권리). 같은 단어의 의미를 미끄러지듯 바꾸는 Equivocation이다.

오답:

  • ① 동정에 호소하지 않음
  • ② 순환 논증이 아님 — 단어의 의미 변화가 핵심
  • ④ 화제를 전환하지 않음
  • ⑤ 한쪽 증거만 제시하지 않음
Q33 Fallacy 식별 — 시나리오 3.5점
A student pleads with her professor: "I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study! Also, it's wrong to tax corporations—think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!"

문제: This passage contains BOTH Appeal to Pity and one additional fallacy. Which additional fallacy is present in the second part of the passage?

① Hasty Generalization — generalizing from one corporation's charity to all corporations

② Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam) — the second argument also appeals to sympathy, this time for corporations, to argue against taxation

③ Red Herring — the topic of corporate taxes is irrelevant to the student's exam grade

④ False Dichotomy — it presents only two options: tax corporations or let them give to charity

⑤ Straw Man — it distorts the argument for corporate taxation

정답: ②

RJ 패턴: 복합 Fallacy 식별 — BOTH 유형

정답 근거: 수업 Handout에서 이 두 예시가 모두 Ad Misericordiam의 사례로 제시되었다. 첫 번째는 학생 자신의 사정에 대한 동정 호소, 두 번째는 기업의 비용 부담에 대한 동정 호소이다. ③의 Red Herring도 일부 해당되지만, 문제의 핵심은 "additional fallacy"로서 두 번째 부분 자체의 논리적 오류를 묻고 있으며, Handout 원문에서 두 번째 예시도 Ad Misericordiam으로 분류한다.

오답:

  • ① 일반화가 아닌 감정 호소
  • ③ Red Herring 요소가 있으나, 두 번째 부분 자체의 논리적 오류는 Ad Misericordiam
  • ④ 두 가지 선택지만 제시하지 않음
  • ⑤ 상대 주장을 왜곡하지 않음
Q34 Fallacy 식별 — 시나리오 3.2점
A parent argues to the school board: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down."

문제: This argument commits which fallacy?

① Slippery Slope

② Begging the Question

③ Red Herring

④ False Dichotomy

⑤ Weak Analogy

정답: ④

RJ 패턴: False Dichotomy 식별 — Handout 원문 예시

정답 근거: "Either we tear it down... or we continue to risk students' safety"로 두 가지 극단적 선택지만 제시한다. 실제로는 보수(renovation), 부분 수리, 임시 이전 등 다양한 대안이 가능하다. 이것이 False Dichotomy이다.

오답:

  • ① 연쇄 반응을 주장하지 않음
  • ② 순환 논증이 아님
  • ③ 화제를 전환하지 않음
  • ⑤ 유추를 사용하지 않음
Q35 Fallacy 복합 분석 — "Love is a Fallacy" 3.5점
"Polly," I croaked, "you mustn't take all these things so literally. I mean this is just classroom stuff. You know that the things you learn in school don't have anything to do with life." "Dicto Simpliciter," she said, wagging her finger at me playfully. That did it. I leaped to my feet, bellowing like a bull. "Will you or will you not go steady with me?" "I will not," she replied. "Why not?" I demanded. "Because this afternoon I promised Petey Bellows that I would go steady with him." I reeled back, overcome with the infamy of it. After he promised, after he made a deal, after he shook my hand! "The rat!" I shrieked, kicking up great chunks of turf. "You can't go with him, Polly. He's a liar. He's a cheat. He's a rat." "Poisoning the Well," said Polly, "and stop shouting. I think shouting must be a fallacy too."

문제: In this climactic passage, Polly identifies two fallacies. Which statement CORRECTLY explains BOTH?

① "Dicto Simpliciter" is correct because the narrator applies a general rule about school to all of life; "Poisoning the Well" is incorrect because the narrator is simply expressing honest anger.

② "Dicto Simpliciter" is incorrect because the narrator is making a hasty generalization; "Poisoning the Well" is correct because the narrator tries to discredit Petey.

③ "Dicto Simpliciter" is correct because the narrator makes an unqualified generalization ("things you learn in school don't have anything to do with life"); "Poisoning the Well" is correct because the narrator tries to discredit Petey ("liar, cheat, rat") to prevent Polly from choosing him.

④ Both identifications are incorrect — the narrator is actually committing Ad Hominem and False Analogy.

⑤ "Dicto Simpliciter" is correct but "Poisoning the Well" should be "Ad Hominem" because Petey has already stated his case.

정답: ③

RJ 패턴: 복합 Fallacy 분석 — BOTH + CORRECTLY 유형

정답 근거: (1) Dicto Simpliciter: "학교에서 배운 것은 인생과 관계없다"는 unqualified generalization이다. 학교 교육이 인생에 적용되는 경우는 무수히 많으므로 예외를 무시한 sweeping generalization이다. (2) Poisoning the Well: Petey를 "liar, cheat, rat"으로 공격하여 Polly가 Petey의 말이나 행동을 신뢰하지 못하게 미리 '우물에 독을 타는' 것이다.

오답:

  • ① "Poisoning the Well"이 맞으므로 오답
  • ② "Dicto Simpliciter"가 맞으므로 오답 — Hasty Generalization이 아님 (specific→general이 아닌 general→specific)
  • ④ Polly의 두 식별 모두 정확함
  • ⑤ Poisoning the Well이 맞음 — Petey가 현장에 없고 Polly에게 그의 신뢰를 미리 훼손하려는 것

배점 요약

파트문항배점소계
Part A Type AQ1~Q8 (8문항)1.2~1.8점12.0점
Part A Type DQ9~Q15 (7문항)3.2~3.5점23.3점
Part B Type AQ16~Q20 (5문항)1.2~1.8점7.5점
Part B Type DQ21~Q35 (15문항)3.2~3.5점50.3점
Part C (Love is a Fallacy)Q36~Q50 (15문항)2~3점38.0점
Part D (Now Cut That Out!)Q51~Q60 (10문항)2점20.0점
Part E (Cross-Text Integration)Q61~Q70 (10문항)2~3점28.0점
합계179.1점

Part C: "Love is a Fallacy" by Max Shulman (Q36–Q50)

Questions 36–42: Opening & Character Setup

36. Inference 2pts
"Cool was I and logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute—I was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a dynamo, precise as a chemist's scales, as penetrating as a scalpel. And—think of it!—I only eighteen."

Which of the following can be MOST reasonably inferred about the narrator from the passage above?

(A) He is a modest person who understates his abilities.

(B) He is self-aware about the humor in his own arrogance.

(C) He has an inflated sense of his own intellectual superiority.

(D) He genuinely possesses extraordinary logical abilities.

(E) He is attempting to impress a specific audience.

Answer: (C)

The exaggerated self-praise ("powerful as a dynamo," "penetrating as a scalpel") and the exclamation "think of it!" reveal an inflated ego rather than genuine modesty or self-awareness. The narrator takes his superiority completely seriously.

(A) The opposite—he overstates. (B) Shulman the author is self-mocking, but the narrator is not self-aware. (D) The story's irony depends on his logic ultimately failing. (E) No specific audience is addressed within the story.

37. Syntax 2pts
"Cool was I and logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute—I was all of these."

The syntactic pattern used in the sentences above is BEST described as:

(A) Periodic sentence with a delayed subject

(B) Inverted sentence with fronted predicate adjectives

(C) Loose sentence with cumulative modifiers

(D) Parallel structure with anaphora

(E) Antithetical construction with balanced clauses

Answer: (B)

"Cool was I" places the predicate adjective before the subject-verb, creating inversion (cf. normal: "I was cool"). This fronting of adjectives emphasizes the narrator's self-admiring qualities and creates a mock-heroic tone.

(A) Periodic sentences delay the main clause until the end, but here the core structure is inverted, not delayed. (C) Loose/cumulative sentences begin with the main clause then add details. (D) Anaphora requires repetition of the same word at the start of successive clauses. (E) No antithesis (contrast between opposing ideas) is present.

38. NOT correct 2pts
"Take, for example, Petey Bellows, my roommate at the university. Same age, same background, but dumb as an ox. A nice enough fellow, you understand, but nothing upstairs. Emotional type. Unstable. Impressionable."

Which of the following is NOT a correct statement about the narrator's description of Petey?

(A) The sentence fragments ("Emotional type. Unstable. Impressionable.") create a dismissive, staccato rhythm.

(B) "Dumb as an ox" is a simile that compares Petey's intelligence to an animal.

(C) The narrator establishes a binary opposition between reason and emotion.

(D) The phrase "nothing upstairs" is a euphemism that softens the criticism of Petey.

(E) The parenthetical "you understand" creates a confiding, first-person voice.

Answer: (D)

"Nothing upstairs" is informal slang (an idiom meaning "no brains") but it does not soften the criticism—it reinforces it bluntly. It functions more as a colloquial insult than a euphemism. A euphemism would replace a harsh term with a gentler one (e.g., "not the sharpest tool").

(A) Correct—the fragments mimic the narrator's rapid, dismissive judgment. (B) Correct—classic simile structure. (C) Correct—the narrator frames himself as "logical" vs. Petey as "emotional." (E) Correct—direct address draws the reader in.

39. BEST describes 2pts
"I had long coveted Polly Espy. Let me emphasize that my desire for this young woman was not emotional in nature. She was, to be sure, a girl who excited the emotions, but I was not one to let my heart rule my head. I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated, entirely cerebral reason."

Which of the following BEST describes the irony in the passage above?

(A) The narrator's use of the word "coveted" contradicts his claim to be purely rational.

(B) The narrator admits that Polly excites emotions, then claims to feel none.

(C) The narrator's description reveals that Polly is more intelligent than he thinks.

(D) The narrator is aware that his feelings are irrational but proceeds anyway.

(E) The narrator's "cerebral reason" for wanting Polly is itself a logical fallacy.

Answer: (A)

The verb "coveted" carries connotations of intense, emotional desire—even greed. By using this word while insisting his motives are "entirely cerebral," the narrator unconsciously reveals the very emotion he denies. This is dramatic irony: the reader sees what the narrator cannot.

(B) He acknowledges Polly excites emotions in general but claims he personally is immune—the real irony is the word "coveted." (C) Polly's intelligence is revealed later, not here. (D) He shows no self-awareness. (E) While arguably true, the passage's primary irony is the word choice, not the logical structure of his plan.

40. Rhetoric 2pts
"Beautiful she was. [...] Gracious she was. [...] Intelligent she was not."

The rhetorical effect of the repeated syntactic pattern "_____ she was" is BEST described as:

(A) Anaphora that builds suspense toward a climactic revelation

(B) Parallelism that creates an expectation, then subverts it with the final clause

(C) Epistrophe that reinforces the narrator's admiration for Polly

(D) Antithesis that directly contrasts beauty with intelligence

(E) Chiasmus that reverses the order of ideas for emphasis

Answer: (B)

The first two instances ("Beautiful she was," "Gracious she was") establish a positive pattern. The reader expects the third to continue, but "Intelligent she was not" breaks the pattern with comic deflation. This is parallelism used to set up and then subvert expectations.

(A) Anaphora requires repetition at the beginning, but the repeated element here ("she was") appears at the end, which would be epiphora/epistrophe rather than anaphora. (C)에 대한 분석: While the repeated "she was" does qualify as epistrophe in form, (C) is wrong because the final clause does not reinforce admiration for Polly—"Intelligent she was not" undercuts the praise, so the rhetorical effect is subversion rather than reinforcement. (D) Antithesis requires two balanced opposing ideas in one sentence. (E) Chiasmus reverses word order (A-B, B-A).

41. Vocab-in-context 2pts
"It is, after all, easier to make a beautiful dumb girl smart than to make an ugly smart girl beautiful."

The narrator's statement above BEST reveals which aspect of his character?

(A) His pragmatic approach to relationships, treating people as means to an end

(B) His genuine concern for Polly's intellectual development

(C) His belief that beauty is more valuable than intelligence

(D) His understanding that all human qualities can be improved

(E) His recognition that his plan has significant limitations

Answer: (A)

The narrator reduces Polly to a set of attributes to be optimized—beauty (fixed) vs. intelligence (trainable). He treats her as a project to mold into the ideal lawyer's wife, not as a person. This reveals his purely transactional, utilitarian view of relationships.

(B) His concern is self-serving, not genuine. (C) He doesn't explicitly rank beauty over intelligence—he just says beauty is harder to create. (D) He implies beauty cannot be improved ("make an ugly smart girl beautiful" is framed as impossible). (E) He shows no doubt about his plan at this stage.

42. Inference 2pts
"My brain, that precision instrument, slipped into high gear. 'Anything?' I asked, looking at him narrowly."

The narrator's exchange with Petey about the raccoon coat BEST illustrates which of the following?

(A) The narrator's willingness to help his roommate acquire what he wants

(B) The narrator's manipulative nature, exploiting Petey's weakness

(C) Petey's shrewd negotiating skills in a difficult situation

(D) The equal power dynamic between the two roommates

(E) The narrator's spontaneous and impulsive decision-making

Answer: (B)

"Slipped into high gear" and "looking at him narrowly" suggest calculated scheming, not generosity. The narrator identifies Petey's obsessive desire (a fad-driven craving) and plans to exploit it for his own gain—acquiring Polly.

(A) The narrator's motive is self-interest, not helpfulness. (C) Petey is shown as easily manipulated, not shrewd. (D) The power dynamic is one-sided. (E) The narrator emphasizes his calculated, systematic nature.

Questions 43–47: The Climax — Polly's Rebuttals

43. Fallacy ID 3pts
Narrator: "We have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched."
Polly: "Hasty Generalization. How can you say that we are well matched on the basis of only five dates?"

Polly's identification of "Hasty Generalization" is correct because the narrator:

(A) draws a broad conclusion from insufficient evidence

(B) appeals to emotion rather than reason

(C) attacks Polly's character instead of addressing her argument

(D) assumes that what is true in general must be true in every specific case

(E) presents two contradictory premises in a single argument

Answer: (A)

Hasty Generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn from too few instances. Five dates is insufficient evidence to conclude they are "well matched." Polly correctly identifies that the sample size is too small.

(B) Describes Ad Misericordiam. (C) Describes Ad Hominem / Poisoning the Well. (D) Describes Dicto Simpliciter. (E) Describes Contradictory Premises.

44. Fallacy ID 3pts
Narrator: "You don't have to eat a whole cake to know that it's good."
Polly: "False Analogy. I'm not a cake. I'm a girl."

Polly's rebuttal is valid because the narrator's analogy fails in which specific way?

(A) A cake is a uniform substance where a small sample represents the whole, but a human relationship involves complex, changing variables that a brief experience cannot capture.

(B) The narrator is comparing two things of the same category, so the analogy is actually valid.

(C) The analogy fails because cakes can also be misjudged from a single taste.

(D) Polly's objection is based on a literal interpretation and misses the metaphorical point.

(E) The analogy is an example of Dicto Simpliciter, not False Analogy.

Answer: (A)

A false analogy compares two things that are alike in superficial ways but differ in the crucial respect relevant to the argument. A cake is homogeneous—one bite tells you about the rest. A person/relationship is not: five dates cannot reveal the full complexity of compatibility.

(B) A cake and a relationship are not the same category. (C) This would weaken the analogy further but is not why Polly objects. (D) Polly's reasoning is sound, not merely literal. (E) This is a textbook False Analogy, not Dicto Simpliciter.

45. Fallacy ID 3pts
Narrator: "Polly, I love you. You are the whole world to me... if you will not [go steady with me], life will be meaningless. I will languish. I will refuse my meals. I will wander the face of the earth, a shambling, hollow-eyed hulk."
Polly: "Ad Misericordiam."

Polly correctly identifies this as Ad Misericordiam because the narrator:

(A) presents contradictory premises about his feelings

(B) uses an unqualified generalization about love

(C) appeals to pity and emotional suffering instead of giving a logical reason to date him

(D) makes a hypothesis contrary to fact about what would happen

(E) poisons the well by describing himself in exaggerated terms

Answer: (C)

Ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity) occurs when someone tries to win an argument by evoking sympathy rather than presenting relevant evidence. The narrator describes his potential suffering ("languish," "refuse meals," "hollow-eyed hulk") to pressure Polly into saying yes—no logical reason is offered.

(A) There is no logical contradiction in his premises. (B) Dicto Simpliciter involves sweeping generalizations, not emotional pleas. (D) While he speculates about the future, the core appeal is to pity, not to a counterfactual hypothesis. (E) Poisoning the Well involves discrediting an opponent before they speak.

46. Central Irony 3pts

Refer to the climactic scene in which Polly systematically rebuts the narrator's romantic arguments using the very fallacies he taught her. Which of the following BEST describes the central irony of this scene?

(A) The narrator's attempt to mold Polly into his ideal partner backfires when she uses his own teachings to reject him.

(B) Polly reveals that she knew the fallacies all along and was pretending to be ignorant.

(C) The narrator realizes that logic is more important than emotion in relationships.

(D) Polly's rebuttals are actually incorrect applications of the fallacies.

(E) The narrator successfully teaches Polly logic but fails to teach her about love.

Answer: (A)

This is situational irony: the narrator's own "weapon" (logic education) is turned against him. He created a logician who can now see through his manipulative, fallacy-ridden arguments. The Pygmalion/Frankenstein allusion in the text reinforces this—his creation has become his undoing.

(B) No textual evidence suggests she was pretending. (C) The irony is the opposite—his logic fails him in matters of the heart. (D) Her identifications are all correct. (E) The narrator never genuinely attempts to teach love; he attempts to win her through manipulation.

47. INCONSISTENT 3pts
Narrator: "You can't go with him, Polly. He's a liar. He's a cheat. He's a rat."
Polly: "Poisoning the Well, and stop shouting. I think shouting must be a fallacy too."

The narrator's outburst is INCONSISTENT with his self-image because:

(A) He resorts to name-calling and emotional attacks—the very behaviors he considers beneath a logical person.

(B) He accurately describes Petey's character but uses inappropriate language.

(C) He commits Poisoning the Well intentionally as a rhetorical strategy.

(D) He demonstrates that shouting is an effective persuasion technique.

(E) He uses logic to systematically dismantle Polly's choice.

Answer: (A)

Throughout the story, the narrator presents himself as "cool," "logical," and above emotion. Yet when his plan collapses, he "leaped to his feet, bellowing like a bull" and attacks Petey's character with pure emotion—committing the very type of irrational behavior he mocked in Petey at the beginning.

(B) While Petey did break a deal, calling him "a rat" is emotional, not accurate character analysis. (C) He commits it unconsciously, not strategically. (D) The shouting fails—Polly calls it out. (E) The opposite—he abandons logic entirely.

Questions 48–50: Themes & Overall Structure

48. Sequence 3pts

The eight fallacies taught in "Love is a Fallacy" appear in a specific order. Which of the following lists them in the CORRECT sequence?

(A) Dicto Simpliciter → Hasty Generalization → Post Hoc → Contradictory Premises → Ad Misericordiam → False Analogy → Hypothesis Contrary to Fact → Poisoning the Well

(B) Hasty Generalization → Dicto Simpliciter → Post Hoc → Ad Misericordiam → Contradictory Premises → False Analogy → Hypothesis Contrary to Fact → Poisoning the Well

(C) Dicto Simpliciter → Post Hoc → Hasty Generalization → Contradictory Premises → Ad Misericordiam → False Analogy → Hypothesis Contrary to Fact → Poisoning the Well

(D) Dicto Simpliciter → Hasty Generalization → Post Hoc → Ad Misericordiam → Contradictory Premises → False Analogy → Hypothesis Contrary to Fact → Poisoning the Well

(E) Dicto Simpliciter → Hasty Generalization → Post Hoc → Contradictory Premises → False Analogy → Ad Misericordiam → Hypothesis Contrary to Fact → Poisoning the Well

Answer: (A)

The correct order as taught in the story: (1) Dicto Simpliciter, (2) Hasty Generalization, (3) Post Hoc, (4) Contradictory Premises — [end of first evening] — (5) Ad Misericordiam, (6) False Analogy, (7) Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, (8) Poisoning the Well.

(B) Reverses the first two. (C) Swaps Post Hoc and Hasty Generalization. (D) Swaps Ad Misericordiam and Contradictory Premises. (E) Swaps False Analogy and Ad Misericordiam.

49. Author's Purpose 3pts

Considering the story as a whole, the author Max Shulman's PRIMARY purpose is BEST described as:

(A) To provide a straightforward textbook lesson on logical fallacies

(B) To satirize intellectual arrogance by showing how a self-proclaimed logician is undone by his own teachings

(C) To argue that women are naturally better at logic than men

(D) To demonstrate that romantic relationships should be based purely on logic

(E) To criticize the American university system's emphasis on logic courses

Answer: (B)

Shulman uses humor and irony to satirize the narrator's intellectual vanity. The story does teach real fallacies, but its deeper purpose is to mock the idea that human relationships can be controlled through pure logic. The narrator's downfall is poetic justice.

(A) The story does teach fallacies, but entertainment and satire are the primary aims. (C) The story doesn't make gender-based claims about logic. (D) The story suggests the opposite. (E) No criticism of the university system is present.

50. Allusion 3pts
"I was not Pygmalion; I was Frankenstein, and my monster had me by the throat."

The shift from the Pygmalion allusion to the Frankenstein allusion serves to:

(A) Show that the narrator has successfully transformed Polly into an ideal partner

(B) Illustrate the narrator's realization that his creation has turned against him

(C) Suggest that Polly has become physically threatening to the narrator

(D) Compare the narrator's skill to that of a great artist

(E) Indicate that the narrator regrets teaching Polly anything at all

Answer: (B)

Pygmalion (Greek myth) created a perfect statue he loved; Frankenstein created a monster that destroyed him. The narrator initially saw himself as Pygmalion shaping Polly, but now realizes—like Frankenstein—that his creation has become something he cannot control. The "monster" (Polly's logic) has him "by the throat."

(A) The Frankenstein allusion indicates failure, not success. (C) The threat is intellectual, not physical. (D) The Frankenstein comparison is self-deprecating, not flattering. (E) He doesn't regret teaching—he's panicked that his own tools are being used against him.

Part D: "Now Cut That Out!" by John Leo (Q51–Q60)

Questions 51–55: Opening & Examples

51. Rhetoric 2pts
"Which of the following stories would be too biased for schools to allow on tests? (1) Overcoming daunting obstacles, a blind man climbs Mount McKinley; (2) Dinosaurs roam the Earth in prehistoric times; (3) An Asian-American girl, whose mother is a professor, plays checkers with her grandfather and brings him pizza."

The rhetorical purpose of opening the essay with this quiz format is BEST described as:

(A) To provide a balanced overview of the textbook industry's practices

(B) To engage the reader through an interactive format and then surprise them with the absurdity of the "correct" answer

(C) To demonstrate the author's expertise in educational testing

(D) To present a fair and neutral description of bias guidelines

(E) To argue that all three scenarios are genuinely biased

Answer: (B)

The quiz format draws readers in, making them think about which story is biased. The surprise—"all three stories are deeply biased"—is designed to shock and highlight the absurdity of the sensitivity guidelines. This engages readers emotionally before the argument begins.

(A) The opening is deliberately one-sided to create an impact, not balanced. (C) Leo is a journalist, not a testing expert. (D) Leo's tone is satirical, not neutral. (E) Leo's point is that labeling them "biased" is absurd.

52. NOT correct 2pts
"(1) Emphasis on a 'daunting' climb implies that blindness is some sort of disability, when it should be viewed as just another personal attribute, like hair color. Besides, mountain climbing stories are examples of 'regional bias,' unfair to readers who live in deserts, cities, and rural areas."

Which of the following is NOT a reason given in the passage for why the blind climber story would be considered biased?

(A) Calling the climb "daunting" suggests blindness is a disability.

(B) Mountain climbing represents "regional bias."

(C) The story promotes dangerous outdoor activities for disabled people.

(D) Blindness should be seen as a personal attribute, not a limitation.

(E) The story is unfair to readers who do not live near mountains.

Answer: (C)

The passage never mentions concern about promoting dangerous activities. The objections are about (A) implying disability, (B)/(E) regional bias, and (D) how blindness should be perceived.

53. Tone 2pts
"Older people must not be shown playing checkers. They should be up on the roof fixing shingles or doing something vigorous. And pizza is a junk food. Kids may eat it—but not in a school story."

The author's tone in this passage is BEST described as:

(A) Objective and informational

(B) Sympathetic and understanding

(C) Sardonic and mocking

(D) Angry and confrontational

(E) Cautious and diplomatic

Answer: (C)

The image of elderly people "up on the roof fixing shingles" is deliberately absurd. Leo mimics the guidelines' logic with exaggerated examples to mock their conclusions. "Sardonic" = grimly humorous / mocking. The dry humor reveals contempt for the guidelines without shouting.

(A) The passage is clearly subjective and opinionated. (B) Leo shows no sympathy for the guidelines. (D) While critical, the tone is more mocking than angry. (E) Leo is the opposite of diplomatic here.

54. Inference 2pts
"Diane Ravitch's new book, The Language Police, documents 'an intricate set of rules' applied to test questions as well as textbooks."

Leo relies on Ravitch's book as his primary source. This choice MOST likely serves to:

(A) Demonstrate that Leo conducted original research on textbook censorship

(B) Lend credibility to his claims by citing an education historian and former government official

(C) Show that Ravitch and Leo disagree on the severity of the problem

(D) Appeal to readers who are already familiar with Ravitch's other publications

(E) Suggest that Leo's column is a formal academic review of the book

Answer: (B)

Leo describes Ravitch as "a historian of education who served as an assistant secretary of education"—establishing her authority. By grounding his satirical column in a credentialed source, he makes his critique more persuasive. This is an appeal to authority (ethos).

(A) Leo explicitly attributes the research to Ravitch, not himself. (C) They agree. (D) The article introduces Ravitch's credentials for readers who may not know her. (E) The piece is a journalistic op-ed, not an academic review.

55. BEST describes 2pts
"Back in the 1980s and 1990s, lots of us chuckled at the spread of the 'sensitivity' industry in schools. [...] Most of us assumed that this was a fad that would soon disappear as grown-ups in education exerted the rule of reason."

The word "fad" in the passage above BEST serves to:

(A) Suggest that sensitivity guidelines were once a temporary trend that was expected to fade

(B) Indicate that sensitivity guidelines were always taken seriously by educators

(C) Compare the sensitivity movement to other educational reforms

(D) Criticize educators for being too progressive in the 1980s

(E) Show that Leo initially supported the sensitivity guidelines

Answer: (A)

Leo uses "fad" to convey that people initially dismissed sensitivity guidelines as a passing trend. His point is that this assumption was wrong—the "fad" became entrenched. This sets up his argument that the problem is more serious than people realized.

(B) The opposite—"fad" implies it was not taken seriously. (C) No comparison to other reforms is made. (D) Leo criticizes the guidelines, not educator progressivism broadly. (E) "Chuckled at" suggests he always found it ridiculous.

Questions 56–60: Ravitch's Analysis & Solutions

56. Argument Structure 2pts
"She blames both the religious right and the multicultural feminist left. The right objects to evolution, magic and witchcraft, gambling, nudity, suicide, drug use, and stories about disobedient children. The left objects to 'sexist' fairy tales, Huckleberry Finn, religion, smoking, junk food, guns and knives..."

Ravitch's strategy of blaming BOTH the right and the left serves to:

(A) Show that she is indecisive about who is responsible

(B) Establish bipartisan credibility by avoiding the appearance of political favoritism

(C) Argue that the right is more responsible than the left

(D) Suggest that censorship is only a problem in politically divided communities

(E) Demonstrate that neither political side cares about education

Answer: (B)

By attributing censorship to both ends of the political spectrum, Ravitch avoids being dismissed as partisan. This strengthens her argument because readers from either side cannot claim she is only attacking their opponents. It positions her critique as principled, not political.

(A) She is decisive—she blames both clearly. (C) She presents both sides as equally culpable. (D) She argues censorship is systemic, not limited to divided communities. (E) Both sides care about education but censor in different ways.

57. Inference 2pts
"What started out as a sensible suggestion—don't always show women as homemakers or minorities in low-level jobs—developed into hard reverse stereotypes (women must not be shown in the home, maids can't be black)."

According to the passage, the sensitivity guidelines evolved from:

(A) Harmful stereotypes to accurate representations

(B) Reasonable intentions to rigid, equally distorted rules

(C) Conservative censorship to liberal censorship

(D) Individual teacher decisions to government mandates

(E) Textbook-specific rules to test-specific rules

Answer: (B)

The passage explicitly traces the trajectory: "sensible suggestion" (reasonable) → "hard reverse stereotypes" (rigid/distorted). The original goal was fair representation, but it calcified into rules that created new distortions instead of eliminating old ones.

(A) "Reverse stereotypes" are not "accurate representations." (C) The passage describes both sides contributing, not a shift from one to the other. (D) and (E) are not discussed in this passage.

58. Vocab-in-context 2pts
"Textbook publishers, with millions of dollars at stake, learned to insulate themselves from criticism by caving in [to] all objections and writing craven 'guidelines' to make sure authors would cave, too."

In context, the word "craven" MOST nearly means:

(A) Innovative and forward-thinking

(B) Carefully researched and thorough

(C) Cowardly and lacking principle

(D) Strict and authoritarian

(E) Complex and difficult to interpret

Answer: (C)

"Craven" means contemptibly lacking in courage. In context, Leo argues that publishers wrote guidelines not out of genuine concern but out of cowardice—to avoid criticism. The word "caving in" reinforces this: they surrendered to pressure rather than standing on principle.

(A), (B) The opposite of Leo's meaning. (D) "Craven" implies weakness, not strictness. (E) The guidelines are rigid, not complex.

59. Solution 2pts

According to the essay, Ravitch proposes all of the following solutions EXCEPT:

(A) Eliminating the state textbook adoption system used by 22 states

(B) Including subject-area teachers on review panels, not just diversity specialists

(C) Making bias and sensitivity reviews publicly available on the Internet

(D) Training better-educated teachers

(E) Creating a federal agency to oversee textbook content nationwide

Answer: (E)

Ravitch recommends eliminating state adoption systems (A), including subject teachers on panels (B), transparency via the Internet (C), and better-educated teachers (D). She never proposes a federal oversight agency—in fact, her argument favors decentralization ("opening up the market"), the opposite of federal control.

60. BEST describes 2pts
"Ravitch speaks for parents more concerned about something else: substituting censorship and propaganda for actual learning."

The concluding sentence of the essay BEST serves to:

(A) Introduce a new argument that was not discussed earlier

(B) Restate the essay's central claim—that sensitivity guidelines have replaced genuine education with censorship

(C) Concede that the education establishment has valid concerns about diversity

(D) Suggest that parents should remove their children from public schools

(E) Acknowledge that Ravitch's proposals are unlikely to succeed

Answer: (B)

The final sentence crystallizes the essay's thesis: the real problem is not diversity or funding but the replacement of "actual learning" with "censorship and propaganda." By invoking "parents," Leo appeals to his broadest audience, framing the issue as one that affects all families.

(A) This summarizes the existing argument, not a new one. (C) Leo does not concede any validity to the establishment. (D) No such recommendation is made. (E) No concession about feasibility appears.

Part E: Cross-Text Integration (Q61–Q70)

61. Comparison 3pts
Text 1 (Shulman): "Fads, I submit, are the very negation of reason."
Text 2 (Leo): "Most of us assumed that this was a fad that would soon disappear as grown-ups in education exerted the rule of reason."

Both authors use the word "fad" in connection with "reason." Which of the following BEST describes the SHARED implication?

(A) Both authors argue that fads are harmless and temporary.

(B) Both authors suggest that fads and rational thinking are fundamentally opposed.

(C) Both authors believe that fads eventually lead to positive change.

(D) Both authors use "fad" to describe phenomena they personally participate in.

(E) Both authors define "fad" in identical technical terms.

Answer: (B)

Shulman's narrator calls fads "the very negation of reason." Leo pairs "fad" with the hope that "reason" would eliminate it. Both frame fads as the enemy of rational thought, though in different contexts (fashion trends vs. educational censorship).

(A) Neither author considers the fads harmless—Shulman's narrator despises them; Leo's point is that the "fad" persisted and caused harm. (C) Neither suggests positive outcomes from fads. (D) The narrator does not follow fads; Leo opposes sensitivity guidelines. (E) No technical definition is provided by either.

62. Genre 2pts

"Love is a Fallacy" is a short story and "Now Cut That Out!" is a journalistic op-ed. Despite the difference in genre, both texts share which of the following rhetorical strategies?

(A) Extended fictional narrative with character development

(B) Use of humor and irony to expose flawed thinking

(C) Formal academic citation of peer-reviewed sources

(D) Direct address to a political audience

(E) Statistical data to support their claims

Answer: (B)

Shulman uses irony (the narrator's downfall) and humor (Polly's rebuttals) to expose the narrator's faulty reasoning. Leo uses sardonic humor (elderly people on roofs, pizza as junk food) to expose the absurdity of censorship guidelines. Both weaponize humor to make their points memorable.

(A) Only Shulman uses narrative. (C) Neither cites peer-reviewed sources. (D) Leo is closer, but Shulman does not address a political audience. (E) Neither uses statistics.

63. Fallacy Application 3pts
Text 2 (Leo): "Dinosaurs are a no-no—they imply acceptance of evolutionary theory."

If the narrator from "Love is a Fallacy" were to analyze the reasoning behind banning dinosaur stories, he would MOST likely identify it as:

(A) Hasty Generalization — concluding that all dinosaur references promote evolution based on limited reasoning

(B) Post Hoc — assuming that reading about dinosaurs causes students to accept evolution

(C) Dicto Simpliciter — applying the unqualified generalization that anything related to evolution must be banned

(D) False Analogy — comparing dinosaur stories to religious instruction

(E) Poisoning the Well — discrediting dinosaur content before it can be evaluated on its merits

Answer: (C)

Dicto Simpliciter involves an unqualified generalization applied too broadly. The reasoning "dinosaurs imply evolution → evolution is controversial → therefore ban dinosaurs" takes a sweeping rule ("anything that might relate to evolution is unacceptable") and applies it without qualification to all dinosaur content, including purely factual or fictional uses.

(A) The issue is not insufficient evidence but an overly broad rule. (B) Post Hoc involves cause-and-effect after temporal sequence, not the logic here. (D) No analogy is being drawn. (E) While the ban does preempt discussion, the core flaw is the sweeping generalization.

64. Comparison 3pts
Text 1 (Shulman): "I was not Pygmalion; I was Frankenstein, and my monster had me by the throat."
Text 2 (Leo): "What started out as a sensible suggestion... developed into hard reverse stereotypes."

Both passages describe situations in which a well-intentioned effort produces unintended negative consequences. This pattern is BEST described as:

(A) Situational irony — the outcome is the opposite of what was expected

(B) Dramatic irony — the audience knows something the characters do not

(C) Verbal irony — the speakers say the opposite of what they mean

(D) Cosmic irony — fate intervenes to undermine human plans

(E) Socratic irony — the speaker feigns ignorance to expose flaws

Answer: (A)

In both cases, the outcome contradicts the original intention. The narrator meant to create an ideal partner but created someone who rejects him. The sensitivity movement meant to reduce bias but created new forms of censorship. Both are textbook situational irony: expectation vs. reality.

(B) Dramatic irony applies to the reader vs. narrator gap in Shulman, but not to Leo's essay. (C) Neither passage involves saying the opposite of what is meant. (D) No fate or supernatural force is involved. (E) No feigned ignorance is present.

65. Theme 3pts

Which of the following BEST identifies a theme SHARED by both texts?

(A) Rigid application of rules—whether logical or institutional—can produce absurd outcomes.

(B) Education systems are inherently flawed and cannot be reformed.

(C) Women are better at logical reasoning than men.

(D) Censorship is always motivated by political ideology.

(E) Intellectual arrogance is limited to academic settings.

Answer: (A)

In Shulman's story, the narrator rigidly applies logic to romance and gets absurd results. In Leo's essay, educators rigidly apply sensitivity guidelines and produce absurd censorship. Both demonstrate that mechanical rule-following without context or flexibility leads to unintended, often ridiculous consequences.

(B) Neither text claims education is irreformable—Leo presents solutions, and Shulman's story is about personal, not institutional, failure. (C) Not a theme of either text. (D) Shulman's story has nothing to do with political censorship. (E) Both examples extend beyond academia.

66. Fallacy Application 3pts
Text 2 (Leo): "In the ideal world of education-think, women would be breadwinners, African-Americans would be academics, Asian-Americans would be athletes and no one would be a wife or a mother."

The reasoning described in Leo's passage (Ravitch's summary of guideline logic) MOST closely mirrors which fallacy from Shulman's story?

(A) Contradictory Premises — the guidelines simultaneously require representation and forbid traditional roles, creating impossible standards

(B) Hypothesis Contrary to Fact — the guidelines create an imaginary world that does not reflect reality

(C) Ad Misericordiam — the guidelines appeal to sympathy for underrepresented groups

(D) Post Hoc — the guidelines assume that showing traditional roles causes stereotyping

(E) Hasty Generalization — the guidelines draw conclusions from too few examples

Answer: (A)

The guidelines aim to promote diversity (positive representation) while simultaneously banning common real-world roles (no wives, no mothers, no minority athletes). These premises contradict each other: you cannot accurately represent a diverse population while forbidding depiction of roles that many people actually hold. Like the Contradictory Premises fallacy ("If God can do anything, can He make a stone so heavy..."), the two requirements cannot coexist.

(B) The guidelines don't start with a false hypothesis and derive conclusions from it. (C) No emotional appeal to sympathy is involved. (D) No temporal cause-effect reasoning is used. (E) The problem is not sample size but internal contradiction.

67. Audience 2pts

The intended audiences of the two texts differ significantly. Which of the following BEST describes this difference?

(A) Shulman writes for logic professors; Leo writes for politicians.

(B) Shulman writes for a general audience seeking entertainment; Leo writes for a general audience seeking information about education policy.

(C) Both texts are written exclusively for university students.

(D) Shulman writes for children; Leo writes for parents.

(E) Both texts target only readers who are already knowledgeable about logical fallacies.

Answer: (B)

Shulman's humorous short story entertains a general readership while incidentally teaching fallacies. Leo's op-ed in U.S. News and World Report informs the general public about educational censorship. Both are accessible to non-specialists but serve different primary purposes (entertainment vs. persuasion/information).

(A) Neither text targets such narrow professional audiences. (C) Neither is exclusively for students. (D) Neither is for children. (E) Shulman's story teaches fallacies to readers who don't know them.

68. Fallacy Application 3pts
Text 2 (Leo): One set of guidelines (McGraw-Hill) "express[es] barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry" as "uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation."

The McGraw-Hill guideline's claim that people of European ancestry are "uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation" is BEST identified as which fallacy from Shulman's story?

(A) Post Hoc — assuming European ancestry causes bigotry

(B) Dicto Simpliciter — making an unqualified generalization about an entire ethnic group

(C) False Analogy — comparing European ancestry to other forms of identity

(D) Poisoning the Well — discrediting European-descended people before they can respond

(E) Ad Misericordiam — appealing to sympathy for non-European groups

Answer: (B)

Dicto Simpliciter involves an argument based on an unqualified generalization. Claiming that people of European ancestry are "uniquely responsible" for bigotry sweeps all individuals of that background into a single category without qualification—exactly the type of overgeneralization the narrator teaches Polly to recognize ("Exercise is good" → "Therefore everybody should exercise").

(A) No cause-and-effect temporal reasoning is involved. (C) No analogy is being drawn between groups. (D) While it could have a well-poisoning effect, the core logical flaw is the unqualified generalization. (E) No appeal to pity is made in this specific claim.

69. Comparison 3pts
Text 1 (Shulman): "I went about it, as in all things, systematically. I gave her a course in logic."
Text 2 (Leo): "[Ravitch] documents 'an intricate set of rules' applied to test questions as well as textbooks."

Both passages describe a systematic approach. The KEY difference in outcome is that:

(A) The narrator's system succeeds; Ravitch's documented system also succeeds.

(B) The narrator's system backfires on him personally; the textbook system backfires on students and education broadly.

(C) The narrator's system is praised; the textbook system is also praised.

(D) Both systems fail because they lack sufficient rules.

(E) Both systems fail because they rely too heavily on emotional reasoning.

Answer: (B)

The narrator's systematic logic teaching backfires when Polly uses it against him (personal consequence). The educational system's "intricate set of rules" backfires by replacing learning with censorship (societal consequence). Both are cases of systematic approaches producing unintended harm, but at different scales.

(A) Both systems produce negative unintended results. (C) Neither system is praised. (D) The problem is not too few rules but the nature of the rules. (E) The narrator's system is based on logic, not emotion; the textbook system is based on sensitivity rules.

70. Synthesis 3pts

A student argues: "Both 'Love is a Fallacy' and 'Now Cut That Out!' ultimately show that trying to control how people think always fails." Which of the following BEST evaluates this claim?

(A) The claim is fully supported: both texts show that thought control is always futile.

(B) The claim is partially supported: Shulman shows the narrator's attempt to control Polly's thinking backfires, and Leo shows censorship fails to eliminate bias—but neither text claims thought control "always" fails.

(C) The claim is unsupported: neither text addresses thought control.

(D) The claim is only supported by Shulman's text, not Leo's.

(E) The claim is only supported by Leo's text, not Shulman's.

Answer: (B)

Both texts do involve attempts to shape thinking: the narrator teaches Polly logic (and loses control of the outcome), and sensitivity guidelines try to shape students' attitudes (and produce censorship instead). However, the word "always" is an overgeneralization. Neither author makes a universal claim that thought control is always futile—Shulman's story is a specific comic case, and Leo's essay is about a specific educational policy. The student's claim captures the spirit but overgeneralizes, making it partially supported.

(A) "Always" is not supported by either text. (C) Both texts clearly address attempts to influence thinking. (D) and (E) Both texts support the claim partially, not just one.


AP English Linguistics Predicted Exam Part C+D+E (Q36–Q70) · 2026 Grade 2, 1st Midterm · Generated for study purposes only