I would appreciate if you can also tell us how you derived at the questions!
1. A) As soon as I see "To argue that modern cultures", I stop reading because I know that this was an expository piece about humor. The author was only interested in culture in as far as it pertained to humor.
B) This one sounds OK, but it seems a bit too narrow in scope.
C) This jumps out at me as clearly the best choice. The verbs "explore" and "discuss" are really true to what the author has done.
D) This one is purely tangential. Doesn't even mention the word "humor"
2. A) Though this answer tempts me, I ultimately fail to choose it because I was under the impression that the author believed that culture was purely separate from physiology...I was under this impression because he says "When differences in what stimulates laughter occur, most likely they stem not from physiology or intellect but from the THIRD ELEMENT, culture." I took this to mean that physiology and culture are completely different elements in the author's eyes, so this answer choice, which implies a degree of overlap, is wrong. Ultimately, it was the word "completely" that threw me off. If it had said "Cultural differences are not genetically determined", then I would have picked this.
B) This is too extreme. Of course we would find some of the same things funny, and the author knows this. He even says we still find Greek comedies funny.
C) This is irrelevent to the topic of culture vs. humor.
D) Going back to what I thought for A, this answer choice seemed to be the most appropriate because it aligned with my belief that the author thought that culture and physiology were completely separate. I thought to myself: "Yeah, they didn't like watching people fight to the death because that is a universal source of humor; they liked it because it was a facet of their unique culture, which was certainly not hard-wired into them from birth"...But I guess I was wrong. I guess the fact that the author believes that basic humor instinct is genetic is enough to make this answer false. In fact, it makes a lot of sense in hindsight. If they had no genetically encoded humor capacity, they would not have found gladiator fight funny REGARDLESS of their culture.
3. A) Does not refer to the same section of the passage to which this question stem is relevant (Paragraph 1)
B) Maybe...Let's keep reading...
C) No. The author does say this, but it is a silly answer given how inconsequential it was to the author's discussion. Plus, what the heck does that have to do with hunting...Little if anything.
D) This sounds good, but so does (B)...Let's refer back to Paragraph 1...At the very end, he says "Laughter appears to be vital for our species' psychological, if not physical, SURVIVAL". Ok, this must be it.
4. A) It would be a huge leap to say that MOST forms of humor are now of this type. Yes, the author believes the Incongruity Theory of humor has many merits, but it would be a gross assumption to say he believes that most types of humor fall in this category.
B) There really is nothing in the passage that provides a means of quantitatively comparing ancient Greek v. Old Western humor. They are not meant to be compared like that.
C) Absolutely not. Remember in the last paragraph when the author gave us that disclaimer about how humor is always changing, etc etc...
D) I've eliminated the first three choices, so I am going into this answer expecting it to be right...Sure enough, it makes sense given what I remember from the passage. The Greeks used "humorist" as a sort of pejorative for someone with a disproportionate amount of one of the humors, whereas now being a "humorist" is clearly a good thing; it means someone who is funny, and the author even says that we act funny sometimes to make people like us.
5. A) This sounds like it fits the bill pretty perfectly. It is, in fact, a case of laughter having an evolutionary root in defense attempts in response to "real physical threats". Sounds perfect. Let's just check the rest to be sure.
B) Nope...The disease could have a billion different mechanisms, none of which necessarily speak to any sort of evolutionary link between laughter and a defense reflex. It is a huge leap to assume that the laughter before death is aimed at fighting the disease. And if it were, that would be very strange indeed. We simply don't know.
C) This has nothing to do with defense reflex. This is more about culture.
D) They don't have laughter, but we are not told anything else about them. Perhaps if they gave us some more info about the selective pressures of these islanders, then maybe...just maybe...this answer would have a shot at seeming reasonable. It falls short.
6. I read "I" and quickly eliminate it as one of the answers. This is clearly a case of "slapstick" comedy, not playful incongruity. It's just the stooges behaving like idiots on a train. It's what we would expect from them. Therefore, eliminate answe choices A and B, since they contain "I".
"II" They expect a horse but get a guy banging coconuts together. Check.
"III" They expect one person to come out of the car since it is so tiny, but a lot of people come out. Check.
So "II" and "III" are both right. The answer must be D.
7. A) The author definitely thinks that humor is a good way of stimulating ourselves intellectually, but he also says there are other ways...He mentions "serious thinking" as a way of accomplishing the same thing, and he never explicitly says which one is the strongest, so we can't say which one is the best.
B) No. This is a sappy feel-good answer that misses the mark of the author's message by a lot.
C) This jumps out as the right answer. The author clearly said in the first paragraph that humor survives because it "stimulates healthy intellectual and physical RELIEF" i.e. it eases physical tension and the more intellectual ailments of emotional tension/ anxiety.
D) It does make us more likeable, but ELIMINATING social fears and taboos? That is a huge over-extension.
As for the Story Line, do you REMEMBER everything and in the order you wrote above? Also, do you pause after reading the passage to recap that Story Line and make a condensed message? And I'm guessing you didn't need to refer back to the passage much while answering.
I remember everything I wrote in the story line and condensed message as I have them written + some miscellaneous details. This pretty much constitutes my working memory. I don't pause to recap this at any point; it simply forms gradually as I am making my way through the passage. By the time I finish reading the last sentence, these thoughts have been fully developed and are ready for me to use on the questions. I did refer back to the passage a couple times as you can see above, but I try to avoid it as much as possible.
