Current time:0:00Total duration:3:42
0 energy points
Studying for a test? Prepare with these 3 lessons on SAT Reading and Writing practice.
See 3 lessons

Reading: Social science — How-to Part 2

Video transcript
- Let's now see if we can tackle the questions. The passage most strongly suggests that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute share which assumption? We saw the writer, he works for the Martin Prosperity Institute. And he's trying to quantify how much cost there is involved when people having to commute every minute of cost. Employees who work from home are are more valuable to their employers than employees that commute. No, he's not saying that. He's just saying, when you commute, regardless how valuable you are to employer, you're just wasting time, having stress, etcetera. Employees whose commutes are shortened, will use the time saved to do additional, productive work for their employers. Ah, maybe. Arguably, they could have used that time to take a vacation, have a break, de-stress. They don't say this directly. I mean this is interesting. Let's read the other choices. Employees can conduct business activities such as composing memos or joining conference calls while commutting. I didn't get any sense that they want people to work while they're driving. Employees who have lengthy commutes tend to make more money than employees that have shorter commutes. So they never made that argument. So out of all these, this one seems to be the best, Employees whose commutes are shortened will use their time saved to do additional, productive work for their employers. And I'm a little bit on the fence of this because they quantified the number of hours and they said if people work those hours, that would be the value to the economy. But they're not saying that that would convert directly to additional productive work. It could be time for the person to recharge, etcetera It didn't into a lot of detail with what the person would do with that time, it just quantified that time in terms of lost work time. But out of all of them, I'll go with this one. As used in line 51, intense most nearly means, Let's read line 51. The coming decades will likely see more intense clustering of jobs, innovations and productivity, and a smaller number of bigger city and city regions. The clustering of jobs, they're talking about a higher concentration of things happening. so, this is not talking about an emotional clustering of jobs, it's talking about a concentrated clustering of jobs. They're not saying a brilliant or determined clustering of jobs either. For these you can literally just replace the word and see how it sounds. And see if it changes the meaning of what they were trying to talk about. Alright. The next one. Which claim about traffic congestion is supported by the graph? A. New York city commuters spend less time annually delayed by traffic congestions than the average for very large cities. No, that's not true, New York spends more than the average for very large ciites. Los Angeles commuters are delayed more hours annually than traffic congestion, than are commuters in Washington D.C. No, they are not, D.C. is the top right over here. Commuters in Washington D.C. face greater delays annually due to traffic congestion than do commuters in New York City. Yep, we see that in Washington D.C. has the most delays annually. So I would go with that. Commuters in Detroit spend more time delayed annually by traffic congestion than do commuters in Houston, Altanta, Chicago. Detroit's near the bottom of at least this list. It actually has less delay than Atlanta, Chicago and Houston.