SAT Prep - Question List

391. Yesterday’s Millers, Today’s Farmers

The miller in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales was obviously a powerful man. Given that his position was the third highest in the land, he was not a member of society that was disregarded for his influence and power. In modern times, the miller is most comparable to today’s farmer. In comparing and contrasting the miller to today’s farmer, there are vast differences, including social status and money earned, but similarities exist in the intense labor required of both.
In the twenty-first century, Americans and populations around the globe rely on farmers for food; the same was true for the miller that is represented in The Canterbury Tales. A distinct difference between a farmer and the miller is their social status. The miller was considered to be the third most powerful person in the land. When one compares this prestigious role to today’s farmers, the reality is that today’s agricultural workers are not regarded as authoritative. Today’s men and women who work diligently to supply the world with food in the form of produce and meat are highly needed, yet remain underappreciated.
Certainly, the miller and the farmer are alike in their desire and need to make money. No one would perform the work required by the miller and today’s farmers if one could not earn money to provide for basic needs. In a contrast to today’s farmers, the miller was known to be a cheat; he often overcharged people and behaved in a rude, disrespectful manner. Comparatively, today’s farmers tend to work diligently to provide a basic need at fair prices. Perhaps the reason that the miller in Chaucer’s work was able to deceive people and overcharge was due to his social status; as previously noted, today’s farmers are far from third in power.
Both occupations require intense physical labor. Farmers often work from sunrise until sunset. This specific occupation does not permit vacations, since the work will not wait. If crops and animals are not given the required attention, the products will not yield a substantial return. Even in the miller’s work, the grinding of corn and wheat had to occur within a short time frame. This alone requires both farmers and the miller to provide a lot of time and devotion to their respective careers, often sacrificing freedoms that many other people in differing professions take for granted.
Geoffrey Chaucer’s work, The Canterbury Tales, was composed several centuries ago, yet there are similarities presented in the miller’s work when compared to today’s farmers. Though there are distinct differences in these roles, both are critical to survival. The miller was regarded as higher in status, yet worked to provide for his basic needs, just as farmers do today; without a doubt, both occupations require responsibility to be at the forefront of their work.



Why was the miller MOST LIKELY able to cheat and overprice his products?

392. Completed by Leonardo da Vinci in 1506, the Mona Lisa is one of the most recognized images in the world. Over the centuries several theories have been proposed regarding the identity of the enigmatic subject of this portrait. While current scholars tend to agree that she is Lisa del Giocondo, the young wife of a wealthy Florence merchant, some dissenters argue that del Giocondo was, in fact, the subject of an earlier portrait, and not the smiling visage of the Mona Lisa. Scholars who reject the del Giocondo identification have proffered several alternative identities.
Some scholars believe Mona Lisa was the Duchess of Milan, Isabella of Aragon. Da Vinci was the Aragon family painter for more than a decade and would have had the time and opportunity to create a portrait of the Duchess. Other scholars have theorized that Mona Lisa is the portrait of a mistress of Giuliano de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence in the early 1500s. More recently, scholars using digital analysis have determined that the Mona Lisa is da Vinci himself, painted as a woman. Digital analysis and comparisons of da Vinci’s facial features and those of the woman in the painting show almost perfect alignment of their features. However, other researchers have pointed out that, since the only images of da Vinci are paintings, primarily self-portraits, this alignment might be attributed to the artist, and not the subjects of the painting.
Using modern scientific analysis to identify artists and their subjects has become more popular in the last few decades. In addition, the availability of laboratories using specialized equipment has increased for laypeople, or those who are not professional scientists. The internet provides a wealth of information for anyone interested in researching art, and communicating the findings of art historians is easier than ever due to the online publishing of academic journals. In 2010, an amateur researcher and art historian, Silvano Vinceti, assembled a team of researchers with the goal of finding the grave of Lisa del Giocondo and determining, by using advanced technology that performs facial imaging based on skeletal structure, if she was the original model for the Mona Lisa.
This would not be Vinceti’s first art-history investigation. Earlier in 2010 he discovered the remains of the Italian artist, Caravaggio, and determined through analysis of the bone fragments that he had died of lead poisoning. In fact, Vinceti’s investigation supported a long-held belief among art historians that Caravaggio had gone mad before his death. The levels of lead present in the artist’s skeleton likely caused significant mental incapacitation before causing his death in 1610. Vinceti was able to compile data from analysis and prior scholars quickly and efficiently, leading to a confirmation of conclusions previously considered only suppositions.
Vinceti’s Caravaggio investigation was not, however, without controversy. Another art historian, Tomaso Montanari, claimed that Vinceti’s interest in identifying Caravaggio was prurient and morbid, and intended only to attract tourists, rather than to shed light on the tragic life of the artist. He pointed out that violating the artist’s grave yielded little new information about the artist, nor was there any discernible upsurge in interest in Caravaggio’s work.
Consistently critical of Vinceti’s projects, Montanari has predicted that the Mona Lisa project will be a failure, and questions the researcher’s motives. Montanari is among a small, but vocal group of highly-regarded art scholars who reject these types of investigations and the value they bring to the study of art. Nevertheless, Vinceti has achieved a significant first step in his research. In August of 2013, he and his team opened and entered a crypt in Florence that has been sealed for over 300 years. In it he hoped to find the final resting places of the Giocondos.
Should the team find remains that may be those of the couple, the first step will be to carbon date a sample of any remaining organic material, such as bone or hair, to establish a date range during with they may have lived. If the remains do not date from the 1500s, they will be automatically disqualified from future testing or investigation.
Critics claim that disrupting the tomb is not only disrespectful, but is also a vain effort. There are likely thousands of women buried in the large crypt and looking for a specific woman will be an arduous, if not futile, task.
If Vinceti is successful in identifying a body that might have carried the enigmatic face of da Vinci’s portrait, and if those remains surmount the hurdle of carbon dating, the next step will be to attempt a DNA match with remains found in an earlier excavation of a different tomb, where Vinceti believes he has found Giocondo’s son.
Even if the remains are confirmed to be those of Lisa del Giocondo, there is no guarantee Vinceti will be able to confirm anything more than the identity of a nearly 500-year-old skeleton. If the skull is not intact, digital scanning of the remains and a simulated reconstruction will be impossible and there will be no way to match the remains to da Vinci’s portrait.
Despite these many hurdles Vinceti remains undaunted in his quest to, once and for all, confirm the identity of the most famous face in the world.



Tomaso Montanari’s attitude toward Vinceti’s work could best be described as:

393. Completed by Leonardo da Vinci in 1506, the Mona Lisa is one of the most recognized images in the world. Over the centuries several theories have been proposed regarding the identity of the enigmatic subject of this portrait. While current scholars tend to agree that she is Lisa del Giocondo, the young wife of a wealthy Florence merchant, some dissenters argue that del Giocondo was, in fact, the subject of an earlier portrait, and not the smiling visage of the Mona Lisa. Scholars who reject the del Giocondo identification have proffered several alternative identities.
Some scholars believe Mona Lisa was the Duchess of Milan, Isabella of Aragon. Da Vinci was the Aragon family painter for more than a decade and would have had the time and opportunity to create a portrait of the Duchess. Other scholars have theorized that Mona Lisa is the portrait of a mistress of Giuliano de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence in the early 1500s. More recently, scholars using digital analysis have determined that the Mona Lisa is da Vinci himself, painted as a woman. Digital analysis and comparisons of da Vinci’s facial features and those of the woman in the painting show almost perfect alignment of their features. However, other researchers have pointed out that, since the only images of da Vinci are paintings, primarily self-portraits, this alignment might be attributed to the artist, and not the subjects of the painting.
Using modern scientific analysis to identify artists and their subjects has become more popular in the last few decades. In addition, the availability of laboratories using specialized equipment has increased for laypeople, or those who are not professional scientists. The internet provides a wealth of information for anyone interested in researching art, and communicating the findings of art historians is easier than ever due to the online publishing of academic journals. In 2010, an amateur researcher and art historian, Silvano Vinceti, assembled a team of researchers with the goal of finding the grave of Lisa del Giocondo and determining, by using advanced technology that performs facial imaging based on skeletal structure, if she was the original model for the Mona Lisa.
This would not be Vinceti’s first art-history investigation. Earlier in 2010 he discovered the remains of the Italian artist, Caravaggio, and determined through analysis of the bone fragments that he had died of lead poisoning. In fact, Vinceti’s investigation supported a long-held belief among art historians that Caravaggio had gone mad before his death. The levels of lead present in the artist’s skeleton likely caused significant mental incapacitation before causing his death in 1610. Vinceti was able to compile data from analysis and prior scholars quickly and efficiently, leading to a confirmation of conclusions previously considered only suppositions.
Vinceti’s Cavaggio investigation was not, however, without controversy. Another art historian, Tomaso Montanari, claimed that Vinceti’s interest in identifying Caravaggio was prurient and morbid, and intended only to attract tourists, rather than to shed light on the tragic life of the artist. He pointed out that violating the artist’s grave yielded little new information about the artist, nor was there any discernible upsurge in interest in Caravaggio’s work.
Consistently critical of Vinceti’s projects, Montanari has predicted that the Mona Lisa project will be a failure, and questions the researcher’s motives. Montanari is among a small, but vocal group of highly-regarded art scholars who reject these types of investigations and the value they bring to the study of art. Nevertheless, Vinceti has achieved a significant first step in his research. In August of 2013, he and his team opened and entered a crypt in Florence that has been sealed for over 300 years. In it he hoped to find the final resting places of the Giocondos.
Should the team find remains that may be those of the couple, the first step will be to carbon date a sample of any remaining organic material, such as bone or hair, to establish a date range during with they may have lived. If the remains do not date from the 1500s, they will be automatically disqualified from future testing or investigation.
Critics claim that disrupting the tomb is not only disrespectful, but is also a vain effort. There are likely thousands of women buried in the large crypt and looking for a specific woman will be an arduous, if not futile, task.
If Vinceti is successful in identifying a body that might have carried the enigmatic face of da Vinci’s portrait, and if those remains surmount the hurdle of carbon dating, the next step will be to attempt a DNA match with remains found in an earlier excavation of a different tomb, where Vinceti believes he has found Giocondo’s son.
Even if the remains are confirmed to be those of Lisa del Giocondo, there is no guarantee Vinceti will be able to confirm anything more than the identity of a nearly 500-year-old skeleton. If the skull is not intact, digital scanning of the remains and a simulated reconstruction will be impossible and there will be no way to match the remains to da Vinci’s portrait.
Despite these many hurdles Vinceti remains undaunted in his quest to, once and for all, confirm the identity of the most famous face in the world.



Why will Vinceti’s team perform DNA analysis of female remains found in the newly opened crypt in Florence, Italy?

394. Completed by Leonardo da Vinci in 1506, the Mona Lisa is one of the most recognized images in the world. Over the centuries several theories have been proposed regarding the identity of the enigmatic subject of this portrait. While current scholars tend to agree that she is Lisa del Giocondo, the young wife of a wealthy Florence merchant, some dissenters argue that del Giocondo was, in fact, the subject of an earlier portrait, and not the smiling visage of the Mona Lisa. Scholars who reject the del Giocondo identification have proffered several alternative identities.
Some scholars believe Mona Lisa was the Duchess of Milan, Isabella of Aragon. Da Vinci was the Aragon family painter for more than a decade and would have had the time and opportunity to create a portrait of the Duchess. Other scholars have theorized that Mona Lisa is the portrait of a mistress of Giuliano de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence in the early 1500s. More recently, scholars using digital analysis have determined that the Mona Lisa is da Vinci himself, painted as a woman. Digital analysis and comparisons of da Vinci’s facial features and those of the woman in the painting show almost perfect alignment of their features. However, other researchers have pointed out that, since the only images of da Vinci are paintings, primarily self-portraits, this alignment might be attributed to the artist, and not the subjects of the painting.
Using modern scientific analysis to identify artists and their subjects has become more popular in the last few decades. In addition, the availability of laboratories using specialized equipment has increased for laypeople, or those who are not professional scientists. The internet provides a wealth of information for anyone interested in researching art, and communicating the findings of art historians is easier than ever due to the online publishing of academic journals. In 2010, an amateur researcher and art historian, Silvano Vinceti, assembled a team of researchers with the goal of finding the grave of Lisa del Giocondo and determining, by using advanced technology that performs facial imaging based on skeletal structure, if she was the original model for the Mona Lisa.
This would not be Vinceti’s first art-history investigation. Earlier in 2010 he discovered the remains of the Italian artist, Caravaggio, and determined through analysis of the bone fragments that he had died of lead poisoning. In fact, Vinceti’s investigation supported a long-held belief among art historians that Caravaggio had gone mad before his death. The levels of lead present in the artist’s skeleton likely caused significant mental incapacitation before causing his death in 1610. Vinceti was able to compile data from analysis and prior scholars quickly and efficiently, leading to a confirmation of conclusions previously considered only suppositions.
Vinceti’s Cavaggio investigation was not, however, without controversy. Another art historian, Tomaso Montanari, claimed that Vinceti’s interest in identifying Caravaggio was prurient and morbid, and intended only to attract tourists, rather than to shed light on the tragic life of the artist. He pointed out that violating the artist’s grave yielded little new information about the artist, nor was there any discernible upsurge in interest in Caravaggio’s work.
Consistently critical of Vinceti’s projects, Montanari has predicted that the Mona Lisa project will be a failure, and questions the researcher’s motives. Montanari is among a small, but vocal group of highly-regarded art scholars who reject these types of investigations and the value they bring to the study of art. Nevertheless, Vinceti has achieved a significant first step in his research. In August of 2013, he and his team opened and entered a crypt in Florence that has been sealed for over 300 years. In it he hoped to find the final resting places of the Giocondos.
Should the team find remains that may be those of the couple, the first step will be to carbon date a sample of any remaining organic material, such as bone or hair, to establish a date range during with they may have lived. If the remains do not date from the 1500s, they will be automatically disqualified from future testing or investigation.
Critics claim that disrupting the tomb is not only disrespectful, but is also a vain effort. There are likely thousands of women buried in the large crypt and looking for a specific woman will be an arduous, if not futile, task.
If Vinceti is successful in identifying a body that might have carried the enigmatic face of da Vinci’s portrait, and if those remains surmount the hurdle of carbon dating, the next step will be to attempt a DNA match with remains found in an earlier excavation of a different tomb, where Vinceti believes he has found Giocondo’s son.
Even if the remains are confirmed to be those of Lisa del Giocondo, there is no guarantee Vinceti will be able to confirm anything more than the identity of a nearly 500-year-old skeleton. If the skull is not intact, digital scanning of the remains and a simulated reconstruction will be impossible and there will be no way to match the remains to da Vinci’s portrait.
Despite these many hurdles Vinceti remains undaunted in his quest to, once and for all, confirm the identity of the most famous face in the world.



What is the most likely reason the author has described multiple theories about the identity of the Mona Lisa?

395. Completed by Leonardo da Vinci in 1506, the Mona Lisa is one of the most recognized images in the world. Over the centuries several theories have been proposed regarding the identity of the enigmatic subject of this portrait. While current scholars tend to agree that she is Lisa del Giocondo, the young wife of a wealthy Florence merchant, some dissenters argue that del Giocondo was, in fact, the subject of an earlier portrait, and not the smiling visage of the Mona Lisa. Scholars who reject the del Giocondo identification have proffered several alternative identities.
Some scholars believe Mona Lisa was the Duchess of Milan, Isabella of Aragon. Da Vinci was the Aragon family painter for more than a decade and would have had the time and opportunity to create a portrait of the Duchess. Other scholars have theorized that Mona Lisa is the portrait of a mistress of Giuliano de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence in the early 1500s. More recently, scholars using digital analysis have determined that the Mona Lisa is da Vinci himself, painted as a woman. Digital analysis and comparisons of da Vinci’s facial features and those of the woman in the painting show almost perfect alignment of their features. However, other researchers have pointed out that, since the only images of da Vinci are paintings, primarily self-portraits, this alignment might be attributed to the artist, and not the subjects of the painting.
Using modern scientific analysis to identify artists and their subjects has become more popular in the last few decades. In addition, the availability of laboratories using specialized equipment has increased for laypeople, or those who are not professional scientists. The internet provides a wealth of information for anyone interested in researching art, and communicating the findings of art historians is easier than ever due to the online publishing of academic journals. In 2010, an amateur researcher and art historian, Silvano Vinceti, assembled a team of researchers with the goal of finding the grave of Lisa del Giocondo and determining, by using advanced technology that performs facial imaging based on skeletal structure, if she was the original model for the Mona Lisa.
This would not be Vinceti’s first art-history investigation. Earlier in 2010 he discovered the remains of the Italian artist, Caravaggio, and determined through analysis of the bone fragments that he had died of lead poisoning. In fact, Vinceti’s investigation supported a long-held belief among art historians that Caravaggio had gone mad before his death. The levels of lead present in the artist’s skeleton likely caused significant mental incapacitation before causing his death in 1610. Vinceti was able to compile data from analysis and prior scholars quickly and efficiently, leading to a confirmation of conclusions previously considered only suppositions.
Vinceti’s Cavaggio investigation was not, however, without controversy. Another art historian, Tomaso Montanari, claimed that Vinceti’s interest in identifying Caravaggio was prurient and morbid, and intended only to attract tourists, rather than to shed light on the tragic life of the artist. He pointed out that violating the artist’s grave yielded little new information about the artist, nor was there any discernible upsurge in interest in Caravaggio’s work.
Consistently critical of Vinceti’s projects, Montanari has predicted that the Mona Lisa project will be a failure, and questions the researcher’s motives. Montanari is among a small, but vocal group of highly-regarded art scholars who reject these types of investigations and the value they bring to the study of art. Nevertheless, Vinceti has achieved a significant first step in his research. In August of 2013, he and his team opened and entered a crypt in Florence that has been sealed for over 300 years. In it he hoped to find the final resting places of the Giocondos.
Should the team find remains that may be those of the couple, the first step will be to carbon date a sample of any remaining organic material, such as bone or hair, to establish a date range during with they may have lived. If the remains do not date from the 1500s, they will be automatically disqualified from future testing or investigation.
Critics claim that disrupting the tomb is not only disrespectful, but is also a vain effort. There are likely thousands of women buried in the large crypt and looking for a specific woman will be an arduous, if not futile, task.
If Vinceti is successful in identifying a body that might have carried the enigmatic face of da Vinci’s portrait, and if those remains surmount the hurdle of carbon dating, the next step will be to attempt a DNA match with remains found in an earlier excavation of a different tomb, where Vinceti believes he has found Giocondo’s son.
Even if the remains are confirmed to be those of Lisa del Giocondo, there is no guarantee Vinceti will be able to confirm anything more than the identity of a nearly 500-year-old skeleton. If the skull is not intact, digital scanning of the remains and a simulated reconstruction will be impossible and there will be no way to match the remains to da Vinci’s portrait.
Despite these many hurdles Vinceti remains undaunted in his quest to, once and for all, confirm the identity of the most famous face in the world.



In the fifth paragraph, the author notes that Tomaso Montanari has characterized Vinceti’s work as “prurient and morbid.” What is the definition of “prurient” as it is used in this sentence?