C is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the storm/wall closing analogy suggests about the two philosophies. You will recognize it by "the analogy suggests that." Unpack the structural logic of each half of the analogy separately, then find the answer that describes both. || How to get the right answer: "Mastering the storm" implies being present inside the storm — fully exposed to its chaos — but remaining unaffected through sheer inward discipline. This is engagement: the Stoic goes into the world, faces its turbulence, and conquers it through will. "Building a wall" implies constructing a barrier between oneself and the storm — the Epicurean withdraws to the secluded garden and simply doesn't let the storm reach them. Choice C captures both: Stoicism = engagement with the world's challenges; Epicureanism = withdrawal from them. || The traps: Choice A (Stoicism is more courageous) imposes a value judgment the passage never makes — both philosophies are presented as legitimate paths to ataraxia, neither ranked above the other. Choice B (both ultimately futile against nature) is not supported by any element of the analogy or the passage. Choice D takes "storm" too literally, trying to connect it to the Epicurean's atomistic cosmology rather than to the analogy's structural meaning. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions with paired analogies (A does X while B does Y), always unpack both halves before reading the choices. Mastering the storm ≠ mastering the storm = engagement. Building a wall = withdrawal. Any answer that describes only one half or mischaracterizes either half is eliminable.

B is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the tired commuter vs. high-powered computer analogy suggests about human decision-making. You will recognize it by "the analogy suggests that." The two terms in the analogy represent the two economic frameworks — identify which is which and what contrast they embody. || How to get the right answer: The high-powered computer = Classical economics' Homo Economicus — perfect logical processing, no bias, complete rationality. The tired commuter = Behavioral economics' predictably irrational human — susceptible to cognitive shortcuts, fatigue, environmental cues, and the placement of items in a grocery store. The analogy illustrates the core Behavioral claim: human decisions are subject to cognitive limitations and environmental influences that Classical economics ignores. Choice B names both elements: cognitive limitations and environmental influences. || The traps: Choice A (Classical economics more applicable to technology than humans) misreads the computer metaphor — the passage uses it to describe how Classical economics models humans, not to say technology is better at economic decisions. Choice C (commuters are less rational than other workers) takes the analogy too literally — commuters are a metaphor for all humans, not a claim about commuter-specific irrationality. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions with paired analogies, always assign each term to the framework it represents. Computer = Classical model; commuter = Behavioral model. Then describe what contrast the pairing illustrates. The correct answer will name that contrast directly.

D is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the phrase "his own jailer" illustrates about Bentham's and Foucault's argument. You will recognize it by "the description of X illustrates that." The phrase has a specific function within the broader theory of disciplinary power. || How to get the right answer: When the prisoner polices their own behavior out of fear of observation, they have internalized the role of the jailer. The external guard becomes redundant — control is achieved without constant active enforcement. This is precisely Bentham's genius and Foucault's theoretical point: disciplinary power reaches its maximum efficiency when the subject regulates themselves. External enforcement becomes unnecessary because internal compliance takes its place. Choice D captures this: the ultimate goal of surveillance is to make external enforcement unnecessary through internal compliance. || The traps: Choice B (the Central Tower is an analogy for the human conscience) is an interesting trap — it maps the tower onto an internal faculty. But the passage frames the self-policing as a response to external uncertainty (fear of the guard's presence), not as an internalized moral conscience. The tower represents external observation, not internal morality. Choice A (design was flawed and led to escapes) directly contradicts the passage's framing of the design as a success. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions about what a phrase illustrates, always ask: "What point in the argument does this phrase anchor?" Here, "his own jailer" anchors the argument that maximum power = internalized compliance = external enforcement becomes redundant. The answer must capture that conclusion.

D is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the Mechanical Turk comparison illustrates about AI. You will recognize it by "the description of X as a [term] serves to illustrate the idea that." Unpack what the Turk's essential feature is, then find the answer that maps that feature onto AI. || How to get the right answer: The Mechanical Turk's essential feature is the gap between surface appearance (a chess-playing automaton with apparent intelligence) and underlying reality (a human operator pulling levers). The passage applies this to AI: the surface appearance is autonomous machine intelligence; the underlying reality is trillions of data points processed without context or empathy. The analogy illustrates that what we perceive as intelligent behavior may be an illusion masking a different underlying reality. Choice D captures this: what we perceive as autonomous machine intelligence may be an illusion hiding a different reality. || The traps: Choice A (technology has become more honest) is contradicted by the analogy — if anything, the modern illusion is more convincing and potentially more dangerous than the original Turk. Choice B (chess is the ultimate test of morality) misreads the chess reference as being about morality rather than about the illusion of autonomous intelligence. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions about a historical analogy applied to a modern context, always ask: "What is the essential feature being transferred?" The Turk's essential feature = appearance of intelligence concealing a different reality. That feature, applied to AI, produces the correct answer.

A is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the mountain/postcard analogy suggests about Kitsch's relationship to high art. You will recognize it by "the analogy is used to suggest that." Unpack what the mountain represents, what the postcard represents, and what the analogy says about the relationship between them. || How to get the right answer: The mountain = the Avant-Garde experience — a difficult climb requiring training, effort, and interpretive labor, offering a unique perspective as a reward. The postcard = Kitsch — it gives you the "view" (the emotional reward, the thrill) without requiring the "climb" (the intellectual and interpretive effort). The analogy suggests that Kitsch is a simplified, low-effort substitute for the emotional rewards that high art provides through harder work. Choice A captures this: Kitsch provides a simplified, low-effort version of the emotional rewards found in high art. || The traps: Choice D (intellectual labor is a waste of time if the view remains the same) is a trap that inverts the author's evaluative stance. Greenberg explicitly values the climb — the whole critique of Kitsch is that bypassing the climb is a problem, not that the view is what ultimately matters. The view without the climb is precisely what Greenberg criticizes as politically dangerous. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions with analogies from a passage that has a clear evaluative stance (Greenberg values the Avant-Garde over Kitsch), any answer that reverses that evaluative stance is eliminable. The author values the mountain climb. The correct answer must reflect that the postcard is a lesser substitute, not an equivalent or superior alternative.

D is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what rhetorical purpose a specific comparison serves. You will recognize it by "serves primarily to" following a quoted or described analogy. Your task is to identify what argumentative point the analogy is meant to support, not just what it literally says. || How to get the right answer: The tumor analogy appears in the Radical Renewalist's argument. A doctor refusing to remove a tumor "out of respect for its unique cellular structure" is depicted as absurd — the tumor is harmful and must be excised for the organism to survive. Mapped onto the city: old industrial structures are the tumor, the city is the organism, and preservation is the negligent doctor. The analogy frames old structures as pathological. Choice D captures this precisely. || The traps: Choice A (biological necessity of urban expansion) takes the biological metaphor too literally — the analogy is about pathology, not growth imperatives. Choice C (Palimpsest architects are negligent) is close but inverts the logic — the negligent doctor represents the Renewalist's caricature of preservation, not a claim the author is making against Palimpsest advocates. Choice B (urban decay is natural and painful) misreads the analogy as sympathetic toward decay rather than as a call to remove it. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions, always ask: "What position does the person using this analogy hold, and what point are they trying to make with it?" The Renewalist uses the tumor analogy to argue that preservation is harmful — that's the function, and the correct answer will reflect it.

B is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the Night Watchman analogy illustrates about Locke's theory of the state. You will recognize it by "serves to illustrate that." Identify the defining characteristic of a night watchman and map it onto Locke's concept of state power. || How to get the right answer: A night watchman has a specific, narrowly defined duty: protecting the property and safety of those in their care. They do not manage how those people live, what they eat, what they believe, or how they spend their time — they simply patrol and protect. This maps onto Locke's limited state: its only legitimate function is to protect the pre-existing natural rights (life, liberty, property) that citizens already possess. The state has no mandate to direct citizens' lives more broadly. Choice B captures this limited, specific-duty quality. || The traps: Choice A takes "night" too literally — the watchman analogy is not about the time of day but about the limited scope of the role. Choice C imports divine-right theory (kings chosen by God to shepherd their people), which directly contradicts Locke's framework — Locke's state is a human contract, not a divine appointment. Choice D (surveillance as a necessary evil) imports Foucauldian framing that is entirely absent from this passage. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions involving analogies to occupations, always identify the defining characteristic of the occupation that is being invoked. A night watchman's defining characteristic is limited, protective duty — not active management. That limitation is the entire point of the analogy.

D is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the ancient cathedral analogy emphasizes about Jung's model of the psyche. You will recognize it by "the comparison serves to emphasize that." Identify the cathedral's defining structural feature and map it onto the Collective Unconscious. || How to get the right answer: An ancient cathedral is built on foundations laid by architects and builders who lived centuries or millennia before the current occupants. The structure contains elements — the foundations, the arches, the basic design — that predate any individual who currently inhabits or uses the space. Applied to Jung's psyche: the Collective Unconscious contains structural elements (Archetypes) that predate any individual's personal existence, inherited from the long history of human evolution and experience. Choice D captures this: the mind contains structural elements that pre-date the individual's personal existence. || The traps: Choice A (Jungian psychology is a religious movement) takes the cathedral metaphor too literally — the cathedral is invoked for its architectural quality (ancient foundations that pre-date current occupants), not for its religious function. Choice B (cold, stone structure that can't be changed) is a literal reading of cathedral materials, not a mapping of the architectural feature being invoked. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions about analogies to physical structures, always identify the specific physical property being invoked. For the cathedral, the relevant property is the pre-existence of the foundations relative to current occupants. Don't let the religious, aesthetic, or material properties of the cathedral distract from the one property that matters.

B is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the "destination" metaphor illustrates about the reader's role in Barthesian theory. You will recognize it by "the description of X as a [term] serves to illustrate that." Unpack what being a "destination" implies about the role the reader plays. || How to get the right answer: In the passage, meaning travels from the text to its destination — the reader. But the reader is not a passive endpoint like a mailbox or a train station; they are the active space "on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed." The reader must "untangle" the web of language — they synthesize the various threads into meaning. Being the destination means being the place where meaning is actively produced, not passively received. Choice B captures this: the reader is the active participant who synthesizes the various threads of a text into meaning. || The traps: Choice C (authors should address their work to the broadest possible audience) misapplies the destination metaphor by focusing on the author's targeting strategy — but Barthes's entire argument is that the author's intentions (including who they're writing for) are irrelevant. The "destination" refers to where meaning is produced, not where the author aims the text. Choice A (books like packages opened by intended recipients) restores the author's intention in identifying the "intended" recipient — another Author-as-God move. || Strategy Rx: On IEA questions about Barthesian theory, always confirm that the correct answer keeps the author entirely out of the picture. Any answer that reintroduces the author's intention, targeting, or purpose is incompatible with the Death of the Author framework.

C is correct. || What type of problem is this? This is an Interpret-Examples-Analogies question asking what the chess piece/button comparison emphasizes. You will recognize it by "the comparison serves to emphasize that." The button example is the passage's own illustration of the core linguistic principle — extract what that principle says about the relationship between form and meaning. || How to get the right answer: The button replaces the ivory knight and becomes the knight for all functional purposes, even though its material is entirely different. This illustrates that value in a system comes from function within the rules, not from inherent qualities of the physical form. Applied to language: any arbitrary sound can represent any concept as long as it functions within the established rules of the language system. The material (sound) is irrelevant; the systematic role is everything. Choice C captures this directly. || The traps: Choice A (valuable only if made of high-quality materials) is the exact opposite of what the analogy shows — the button works as well as the ivory piece, proving material quality is irrelevant. Choice B (meaning depends on physical sound) misapplies the analogy — the chess principle shows the opposite: the physical form of the piece/sound is irrelevant to its meaning. || Strategy Rx: The button example is designed to shock students into recognizing that the "obvious" material properties of a word's sound are irrelevant to its meaning. The correct answer will always express the irrelevance of material form and the primacy of systemic function.