SAT Örnek Sorular: Çözümlü Digital SAT Soruları

Since $M$ is linear, its slope is constant. Using the two given points $(2, 40)$ and $(6, 60)$: $$\text{slope} = \frac{60 - 40}{6 - 2} = \frac{20}{4} = 5$$ So the cost increases by $5 per gigabyte. The point $(4, 50)$ lies exactly halfway between $(2, 40)$ and $(6, 60)$, giving $M(4) = 40 + 5(2) = 50$ dollars, which is option C. Option B ($55) is the strongest distractor; it would apply if the cost increased by $5$ per gigabyte but started from a base of $45$ rather than $30$ (i.e., using $M(b) = 5b + 35$ instead of $M(b) = 5b + 30$), but that equation fails to match the given point $M(2)=40$.

The passage describes a village that "appeared prosperous" yet "had no access to literacy instruction or mathematical training." This context — a community with material means but without schools — signals that "want" cannot mean "poverty" (B), since prosperity is explicitly stated, nor "desire" (A), since the sentence concerns what the village did not have rather than what it wished for. "Requirement" (D) is likewise unsupported; nothing in the passage frames schools as something the village demanded or necessitated. Instead, "want" functions as a formal term meaning a deficiency or nonpossession, paralleling the later phrase "had no access." The sentence is therefore reporting that, despite outward success, the village suffered an absence or lack of educational institutions — making C the best fit.

The function is in vertex form, $S(s) = -6(s-3)^2 + 90$, where the vertex occurs at $s = 3$ and $S = 90$. Because the coefficient of $(s-3)^2$ is negative ($-6$), the parabola opens downward, so the vertex represents the maximum value. Substituting $s = 3$: $S(3) = -6(0)^2 + 90 = 90$. Any other value of $s$ makes $(s-3)^2 > 0$, which decreases the score. The strongest distractor, option B, incorrectly identifies the value that maximizes the function (it conflates the coefficient with the input) and also misinterprets vertex form.

The passage describes how barn owls introduced to control rats on Pacific islands initially appeared successful but ultimately caused significant harm to native species. Specifically, the owls shifted their predation to easier targets—native lizards and seabirds—rather than continuing to suppress the rat population. On Henderson Island, this "mesopredator redirection" drove two endemic gecko species to near extinction while rat populations recovered to pre-introduction levels. This evidence directly supports the inference that introduced predators can backfire, damaging native wildlife instead of solving the pest problem, precisely because predators tend to favor easier prey when target species become harder to catch. Option B is contradicted by the passage, which shows the owls did not adapt toward targeting rats but instead shifted away from them. Option C is refuted by the same evidence, since the initial sharp decline in rat sightings was followed by population rebound and serious ecological harm. Option D introduces a claim—pairing with habitat restoration—that the passage never addresses. Only option A is consistent with the cautionary lesson the text draws from these real-world introductions.

Choice C is correct. A 25% reduction means the sale price is 75% of the regular price: $0.75 \times 80 = 60$ dollars. Choice A is incorrect. This is the amount of the discount, not the sale price. Choice B is incorrect and may result from subtracting $25$ dollars instead of 25%. Choice D is incorrect. This results from treating the 25% as a $5$-dollar reduction.

Choice C is correct. The previous sentence presents empirical evidence that investors chase recent high performers and panic-sell during downturns, behaviors that contradict the rationality assumption. The final sentence draws the conclusion that follows from this evidence: the assumption "fails to capture actual market behavior." The cause-effect transition "Therefore," correctly links the evidence to that conclusion; the concession to the theory's appeal is already carried inside the sentence by "while mathematically elegant." Choice A is incorrect because "Granted," would frame the author's own conclusion as a concession to an opposing view, but the sentence states the author's thesis, not an admission. Choice B is incorrect because "Specifically," would introduce a particular instance of the previous claim, whereas the final sentence generalizes from the studies rather than itemizing one of them. Choice D is incorrect because "Similarly," would signal a parallel observation, but the final sentence is a conclusion drawn from the evidence, not another comparable point.

The two walkways are parallel, and the diagonal pathway is a transversal cutting both. At the first intersection, the pathway makes a $65^\circ$ angle with a walkway. The alternate interior angle at the second intersection also equals $65^\circ$ (alternate interior angles formed by a transversal cutting parallel lines are congruent). The marked exterior angle forms a linear pair with this $65^\circ$ interior alternate angle, so: $$180^\circ - 65^\circ = 115^\circ$$ Option A is wrong because it confuses the exterior angle with the interior alternate angle, ignoring the linear pair relationship. Option C applies an incorrect supplementary step, and Option D has no geometric basis.

Choice C is correct. "The Incan road system, known as Qhapaq Ñan, spanned approximately 40,000 kilometers across six modern-day countries" is an independent clause, and the six names that follow specify those countries. A colon is the conventional mark for introducing such a list after an independent clause. Choice A is incorrect because a semicolon links independent clauses or separates items in a series that already contains commas; the material after the blank is a simple list of names, not a clause. Choice B is incorrect because the six countries are themselves separated by commas, so an additional comma leaves the list without a clear introduction. Choice D is incorrect because it attaches the list directly to "countries" with no punctuation, giving the reader no signal that the names identify the six countries.

Subtracting the equations to eliminate one variable is efficient. Multiply the first equation by 3 and the second by 2: $$3(7x-2y)=3(16) \implies 21x-6y=48$$ $$2(5x+3y)=2(41) \implies 10x+6y=82$$ Adding gives $31x=130$, so $x=\frac{130}{31}$. Multiplying by 3 and -2 respectively: $$21x-6y=48, \quad -10x-6y=-82$$ Subtracting gives $31x=130$, same result. To find $y$, substitute back: $5\left(\frac{130}{31}\right)+3y=41$, so $\frac{650}{31}+3y=\frac{1271}{31}$, giving $3y=\frac{621}{31}$, thus $y=\frac{207}{31}$. Then $x-y=\frac{130-207}{31}=-\frac{77}{31}$. The strongest distractor, B, likely comes from a sign error when subtracting the two equations (computing $y-x$ instead of $x-y$). Option A results from inverting a fraction during elimination, and D arises from dropping a term. Only C correctly yields the signed difference.

The passage provides two key pieces of evidence: the clay analysis shows the pottery was made from local Cretan clay (ruling out importation), while the decorative motifs resemble Cycladic styles. Combined with evidence of sustained regional contact (the harbor location and Milos obsidian), the researchers conclude this represents cultural transmission—meaning Cretan potters learned or adopted Cycladic designs rather than receiving the finished products. Option A is directly contradicted by the chemical analysis showing local clay. Option B introduces an unsupported claim about obsidian production; the passage only states the tools were "sourced from" Milos. Option D contradicts the passage, which specifically cites harbor access and obsidian imports as evidence of maritime connections. Option C correctly synthesizes the local manufacture with stylistic borrowing and the evidence of ongoing contact.

Choice D is correct. Because $p(2) = 0$, $(x - 2)$ is a factor, and dividing gives $$p(x) = (x - 2)(2x^2 + x - 15).$$ To factor the quadratic, find two numbers whose product is $2(-15) = -30$ and whose sum is 1: they are 6 and $-5$. Then $$2x^2 + 6x - 5x - 15 = 2x(x + 3) - 5(x + 3) = (2x - 5)(x + 3),$$ so $p(x) = (x - 2)(2x - 5)(x + 3)$. Choice A is incorrect because $(2x - 3)(x + 5) = 2x^2 + 7x - 15$, which has the wrong middle term. Choice B is incorrect because, although $(x - 2)(2x^2 + x - 15)$ does equal $p(x)$, the quadratic still factors, so this is not a complete factorization. Choice C is incorrect because $(2x + 5)(x + 3) = 2x^2 + 11x + 15$, whose middle and constant terms are both wrong.

Choice C is the best answer. The text opens with the familiar accident story, explicitly concedes it ("The story is not false"), and then reframes: purification and industrial production over more than a decade — "deliberate, coordinated labor" — are what actually made penicillin a drug. Choice A is incorrect because the text decisively favors the fuller account rather than leaving the matter unresolved. Choice B is incorrect because the text is an argument about credit and completeness, not a neutral chronology from hypothesis to acceptance. Choice D is incorrect because the text affirms the anecdote’s accuracy while attacking its completeness — it corrects emphasis, not facts.