SAT Reading Practice Online Test 70 | SAT 2022 Online Tutor AMBiPi

Hi SAT Aspirants, welcome to AKVTutorials. As you know SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) is a standard test, used for taking admission to undergraduate programs of universities or colleges of United States. SAT is developed and published by the College Board, an organization in United States, administered by the Educational Testing Service. Are you searching for SAT Reading Practice Questions? Then, in this article of AKVTutorials, you will get SAT Reading Practice Online Test 70 | SAT 2022 Online Tutor AMBiPi

SAT Reading Practice Passage

SAT Reading Practice Test Comprehensive Passage

Passage 1 is adapted from Judith Butler, “Hannah Arendt’s Challenge To Adolf Eichmann” was published in 2011 and Passage 2 is adapted from Tony Judt’s “The ‘Problem of Evil’ in Postwar Europe” in 2008 NY Review of Books. The following 13 multiple choice questions are based on the passage below.

Fifty years ago the writer and philosopher Hannah Arendt
witnessed the end of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the
major figures in the organization of the Holocaust. Covering
the trial Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil”, a
Line 5 phrase that has since become something of an intellectual
cliché. But what did she really mean?
One thing Arendt certainly did not mean was that evil had
become ordinary, or that Eichmann and his Nazi cohorts had
committed an unexceptional crime. Indeed, she thought the
Line 10 crime was exceptional, if not unprecedented, and that as a
result it demanded a new approach to legal judgment itself.
There were at least two challenges to legal judgment that she
underscored, and then another to moral philosophy more
generally. The first problem is that of legal intention. Did the
Line 15 courts have to prove that Eichmann intended to commit
genocide in order to be convicted of the crime? Her argument
was that Eichmann may well have lacked “intentions” insofar
as he failed to think about the-crime he was committing. She
did not think he acted without conscious activity, but she
Line 20 insisted that the term “thinking” had to be reserved for a
more reflective mode of rationality. Arendt wondered
whether a new kind of historical subject had become possible
with national socialism, one in which humans implemented
policy, but no longer had “intentions” in any usual sense. To
Line 25 have “intentions” in her view was to think reflectively about
one’s own action as a political being, whose own life and
thinking is bound up with the life and thinking of others. So,
in this first instance, she feared that what had become “banal”
was non-thinking itself. This fact was not banal at all, but
Line 30 unprecedented, shocking, and wrong. By writing about
Eichmann, Arendt was trying to understand what was
unprecedented in the Nazi genocide — not in order to
establish the exceptional case for Israel, but in order to
understand a crime against humanity, one that would
Line 35 acknowledge the destruction of Jews, Gypsies, gay people,
communists, the disabled and the ill.
Just as the failure to think was a failure to take into account
the necessity and value that makes thinking possible, so the
destruction and displacement of whole populations was an
Line 40 attack not only on those specific groups, but on humanity
itself. As a result, Arendt objected to a specific nation-state
conducting a trial of Eichmann excusively in the name of its
own population. At this historical juncture, for Arendt, it
became necessary to conceptualize and prepare for crimes
Line 45 against humanity, and this implied an obligation to devise
new structures of international law. So if a crime against
humanity had become in some sense “banal” it was precisely
because it was committed in a daily way, systematically,
without being adequately named and opposed. In a sense, by
Line 50 calling a crime against humanity ‘banal”, she was trying to
point to the way in which the crime had become for the
criminals accepted, routinized, and implemented without
moral revulsion and political indignation and resistance.
What had became banal — and astonishingly so — was the
Line 55 failure to think. Indeed, at one point the failure to think is
precisely the name of the crime that Eichmann commits. We
might think at first that this is a scandalous way to describe
his horrendous crime, but for Arendt the consequence of
non-thinking is genocidal, or certainly can be.
Line 60 The question of how human beings could do this to each 
other — and above all the question of how and why one
European people (Germans) could set out to exterminate
another (Jews) — were, for an alert observer like Arendt,
self-evidently going to be the obsessive questions facing the
Line 65 continent. That is what she meant by “the problem of evil.”
In one sense, then, Arendt was of course correct. But as so
often, it took other people longer to grasp her point. It is true 
that in the aftermath of Hitler’s defeat and the Nuremberg
trials lawyers and legislators devoted much attention to the
Line 70 issue of “crimes against humanity” and the definition of a
new crime — “genocide” — that until then had not even had a
name. But while the courts were defining the monstrous
crimes that had just been committed in Europe, Europeans
themselves were doing their best to forget them. And in that
Line 75 sense at least, Arendt was wrong, at least for a while.
Far from reflecting upon the problem Of evil in the years that
followed the end of World War Il, most Europeans turned
their heads resolutely away from it. Today we find this
difficult to understand, but the fact is that the Shoah — the
Line 80 attempted genocide of the Jews of Europe — was for many
years by no means the fundamental question of postwar
intellectual life in Europe (or the United States). Indeed,
most people, intellectuals and others, ignored it as much as
they could. Why?
Line 85 In Eastern Europe there were four reasons. In the first place,
the worst wartime crimes against the Jews were committed
there; and although those crimes were sponsored by Germans
there was no shortage of willing collaborators among the
local occupied nations: Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, Croats,
Line 90 and others. these was a powerful incentive in many places to 
forget what had happened, to draw a veil over the worst
horrors. Secondly, many non-Jewish East Europeans were
themselves victims of atrocities (at the hands of Germans,
Russians, and others) and when they remembered the war
Line 95 they did not typically think of the agony of their Jewish
neighbors but of their own suffering and losses. Thirdly, most
Of Central and Eastern Europe came under Soviet control by
1948. The official Soviet account of World War Il was of an
anti-fascist war — or, within the Soviet Union, a “Great
Line 100 Patriotic War.” For Moscow, Hitler was above all a fascist
and a nationalist. His racism was much less important. The
millions of dead Jews from the Soviet territories were
counted in Soviet losses, of course, but their Jewishness was
played down or even ignored, in history books and public
Line 105 commemorations. And finally, after a few years behind the
iron curtain, the memory of German occupation was replaced
by that of Soviet oppression. The extermination of the Jews
was pushed deeper into the background.

SAT Reading Comprehension Practice Test Questions

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 1

The author of passage I indicates the best understanding of the phrase “the banality Of evil” is that

Option A : extremities in this case seem cliche and outdated.

Option B : evil has nothing noble or conspicuous.

Option C : acts of crimes become normal and tasteless.

Option D such atrocity becomes customary and routine.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 1

Show/Hide Answer

Option D :  such atrocity becomes customary and routine.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 2

Which choice provides the strongest support for the answer to the previous question?

Option A : Lines 6-9 (“But…crime”)

Option B : Lines 16-21 (“Her…rationality”)

Option C : Lines 49-53 (“In.. .resistance”)

Option D : Lines 54-56 (“What… commits”)

SAT Practice Test Answer No 2

Show/Hide Answer

Option C : Lines 49-53 (“In.. .resistance”)

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 3

The author of passage I suggests that by characterizing Nazi’s evil acts as banality, Arendt may

Option A : underestimate the involvement level of other non-Jewish people in the Holocaust.

Option B : cause nauseating effects and public rage by failing to define clearly the term genocide.

Option C : leave others the initial impression that she believes the crimes by Nazi are commonplace.

Option D : indemnify herself by putting more conscientious efforts to locate the real Legal Intentions.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 3

Show/Hide Answer

Option C : leave others the initial impression that she believes the crimes by Nazi are commonplace.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 4

Based on the information of the passage I, which choice can be inferred about the legal intention” of Eichmann?

Option A : After the Nuremberg Trials, deliberate and intentional killing needs not to be proven in genocide cases.

Option B : Before the Holocaust, the court normally needs to establish criminal intention to convict Eichmann.

Option C : Eichmann probably had never thought of or planned for the mass killing when he executed the orders.

Option D : Eichmann definitely carried out his actions in killing with clear conscious activities.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 4

Show/Hide Answer

Option B : Before the Holocaust, the court normally needs to establish criminal intention to convict Eichmann.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 5

The word “reflective” in line 21 can be replaced by 

Option A : deliberate.

Option B : thoughtful.

Option C : considerate.

Option D : imaginative.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 5

Show/Hide Answer

Option A : deliberate.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 6

As indicated in line 41, Arendt objected to base the trial in a specific nation-state because

Option A : the crimes were committed across Europe and the world.

Option B : the atrocities of the crimes were unprecedented in history.

Option C : the crimes were committed on the entire human.

Option D : the legitimacy of specific nation-state was not strong enough.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 6

Show/Hide Answer

Option C : the crimes were committed on the entire human.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 7

On which of the following points would the authors of both passages most likely agree?

Option A : The crime against humanity was overshadowed by the rules of Soviet after the war.

Option B : The crime against humanity was committed widely and tacitly by. many during the war.

Option C : The term “genocide” should be coined to become the central issue of fundamental concerns for Europeans.

Option D : Many European sympathizers of Nazi should be condemned harshly in the history studies.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 7

Show/Hide Answer

Option B : The crime against humanity was committed widely and tacitly by. many during the war.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 8

How would the author of passage I most likely respond to the “problem oferil” in line 65 of passage 2?

Option A : The crimes against humanity shall be clarified as a new concept for international juridical system.

Option B : Such a crime of evil is never truly recognized formally by the European intellectuals. 

Option C : The problem of evil does not mean the crimes targeted against Jews, Gypsies, gay people etc.

Option D : It is obviously a collective consciousness in play for criminals like Eichmann in committing the crimes.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 8

Show/Hide Answer

Option A : The crimes against humanity shall be clarified as a new concept for international juridical system.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 9

Which choice best summarizes the main purposes of these two passages, respectively?

Option A : The first passage lays out the historical background for a serious crime, while the second paragraph analyies several key aspects of the historical context.

Option B : The first passage identifies the rationales behind a terminology for crime, while the second passage analyies the factors for intentional ignoring of such a crime.

Option C : The first passage focuses on the contribution made by one important figure in categorizing a crime, while the second provides different opinions towards her work.

Option D : The first paragraph exposes the hidden parts of a specific historical issue, while the second passage provides explicit explanations for such a confusion.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 9

Show/Hide Answer

Option B : The first passage identifies the rationales behind a terminology for crime, while the second passage analyies the factors for intentional ignoring of such a crime.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 10

How would the author of passage 1 consider the reasoning put forward by the author of passage 2 as to why “Arendt was wrong” in lines 72-75?

Option A : It is acceptable because the genocide is indeed unprecedented in history.

Option B : It is mistaken because defining the genocide is an imperative.

Option C : It is unnecessary because the crime against humanity shall be clarified.

Option D : It is reasonable because it may provide another direction of thinking.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 10

Show/Hide Answer

Option C : It is unnecessary because the crime against humanity shall be clarified.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 11

The word “they” in line 95 is in Italics in order to

Option A : emphasize the responses of non-Jewish East Europeans to crimes against Jews.

Option B : treat the non-Jewish East Europeans differently as another group of victims.

Option C : separate the Jews from non-Jewish in the conceptualized ethnic groups in war.

Option D : explain there is no significant differentiation between one group of sympathizers from another.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 11

Show/Hide Answer

Option A : emphasize the responses of non-Jewish East Europeans to crimes against Jews.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 12

The author of passage 2 is most likely to comment on the concept of “failure to think” in line 55 that

Option A : the non-Jewish collaborators in Europe would tend to ignore the logic of it.

Option B : the courts across the continent would not come to consensus without it.

Option C : it might seem elusive to many other people for a long period of time.

Option D : et could apply in the same strength to the Soviet oppression in the aftermath of the WWII.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 12

Show/Hide Answer

Option C : it might seem elusive to many other people for a long period of time.

SAT Reading Practice Test Question No 13

According to the passage 2, what can be reasonably inferred about the Soviet oppression in Europe?

Option A : The Soviets committed genocide as well after the war.

Option B : The Central Europe did not come under the Soviet control.

Option C : It had the similar nationalist characteristic as Nazi.

Option D : German devastation in war was as severe as that of the Soviet.

SAT Practice Test Answer No 13

Show/Hide Answer

Option C : It had the similar nationalist characteristic as Nazi.

SAT Reading Practice Tests List

Complete Guide to SAT Reading Tests
Test 1Test 2Test 3Test 4Test 5
Test 6Test 7Test 8Test 9Test 10
Test 11Test 12Test 13Test 14Test 15
Test 16Test 17Test 18Test 19Test 20
Test 21Test 22Test 23Test 24Test 25
Test 26Test 27Test 28Test 29Test 30
Test 31Test 32Test 33Test 34Test 35
Test 36Test 37Test 38Test 39Test 40
Test 41Test 42Test 43Test 44Test 45
Test 46Test 47Test 48Test 49Test 50
Test 51Test 52Test 53Test 54Test 55
Test 56Test 57Test 58Test 59Test 60
Test 61Test 62Test 63Test 64Test 65
Test 66Test 67Test 68Test 69Test 70
Test 71Test 72Test 73Test 74Test 75
Test 76Test 77Test 78Test 79Test 80
Test 81Test 82Test 83Test 84Test 85
Test 86Test 87Test 88Test 89Test 90

Leave a Reply