PT126.S2.P3.Q17

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

The “multicolored” part suggests a fusion between two things, the way Kingston fuses Chinese talk-story characteristics into written English. But her work isn’t a patchwork of English and Chinese; it’s all English, and just feels more like a Chinese talk-story. (B) describes this better. Also, the “scraps of plain cotton cloth” part throws off the analogy even more. Kingston doesn’t use “scraps” of “plain” language to achieve her effect. She takes very specific, poetic elements of the Chinese language and weaves them into English. (A) would be more analogous if said that certain special cotton fibers are woven into a quilt to give it a different texture or appearance.

In this scenario, one thing (linen) is rejected for being inappropriate to achieve a certain result. But the final sentence of the passage doesn’t suggest that Kingston rejects one thing in favor of another. Rather, she takes written English, and then adds certain Chinese characteristics.

In this scenario, two things (cotton and linen) are similar enough to be used interchangeably. But the final sentence of the passage doesn’t suggest that Kingston uses English and Chinese interchangeably as substitutes, or that one is as suitable for her purposes as the other. Rather, she takes certain characteristics of Chinese and works them into English in order to make English more like a Chinese talk-story. (D) would be more analogous if it said that cotton fiber is added to linen in order to give the linen a different feel.

In this scenario, two things are woven together (cotton and linen) to achieve some benefit that one of those things alone doesn’t have (the combination is cheaper than linen alone). This is similar to how Kingston weaves characteristics of Chinese into written English in order to give English certain talk-story qualities that it normally doesn’t have. But the “similar textures” part of (E) ruins the analogy. Kingston doesn’t add Chinese characteristics to English because the languages are similar; she does so because Chinese has certain special characteristics that are emphasized in talk-stories. If anything, Kingston weaves Chinese into English because Chinese is different from English and lends English certain qualities that it doesn’t normally have.