TABE Exam Questions & Answers 2026 (11–20)

Question 1

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges.

However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

Read the sentence from paragraph 2. In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”).

What is the problem (if any) with the statistic provided in the sentence above?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

The author doesn’t indicate where the study is from or who conducted it, so the audience doesn’t know if the data presented reflects a defendable statistic.. Because it’s important for writers to provide a source whenever they cite data. This will help the reader better understand whether the data is valid or not.

Answer choice (C) might be tempting, but the author indicates that this information is from a survey, which means that even if the indicators are subjective, they become quantifiable data points as soon as subjects of the survey begin choosing them.

Question 2

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment.

However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing).

However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office.

However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

According to the passage, why does the current trend of low-budget horror films lead to more bad sequels?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

They don’t cost much to make and people go see them because of brand recognition.. In discussing these sequels, the writer writes, “They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office.”

Answer choices (A) and (C) are not explored in the passage, and the writer applauds the creative freedom studios are giving new directors, which makes answer choice (D) incorrect.

Question 3

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years.

	The world can be classified in different ways,
	depending on one's interests and principles of clas-
	sification. The classifications (also known as
Line	taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons
5	seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog-
	ical. For example, it has been common to classify
	living creatures into three distinct groups—plants,
	animals, and humans. According to this classifica-
	tion, human beings are not a special kind of
10	animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus
	any comparisons between the three groups are
	strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in
	garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from
	these two species to inheritance in human beings,
15	is sheer poetic metaphor.

	Another mode of classifying living creatures is
	commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat-
	ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct
	groups, they are nested. All living creatures
20	possess a vegetative soul that enables them to
	grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a
	sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi-
	ronments and move. One species also has a
	rational soul that is capable of true understanding.
25	Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal,
	and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this
	classification, reasoning from human beings to all
	other species with respect to the attributes of the
	vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from
30	human beings to other animals with respect to the
	attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate,
	but reasoning from the rational characteristics of
	the human species to any other species is merely
	analogical. According to both classifications, the
35	human species is unique. In the first, it has a king-
	dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the
	pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy.

	Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But
	this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many
40	(probably most) people, philosophers included. For
	some reason, it is very important that the species
	to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of
	utmost importance that the human species be
	insulated from all other species with respect to
45	how we explain certain qualities. Human beings
	clearly are capable of developing and learning
	languages. For some reason, it is very important
	that the waggle dance performed by bees ^* not
	count as a genuine language. I have never been
50	able to understand why. I happen to think that the
	waggle dance differs from human languages to
	such a degree that little is gained by terming them
	both "languages," but even if "language" is so
	defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still
55	remain bees. It is equally important to some that
	no other species use tools. No matter how inge-
	nious other species get in the manipulation of
	objects in their environment, it is absolutely
	essential that nothing they do count as "tool use."
60	I, however, fail to see what difference it makes
	whether any of these devices such as probes and
	anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species
	involved remain distinct biological species no
	matter what decisions are made. Similar observa-
65	tions hold for rationality and anything a computer
	might do.

If the author had wished to explain why "most" people (line 40) feel the way they do, the explanation would have probably focused on the

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

lack of objectivity in the classification of Homo sapiens. Through exaggeration and sarcasm, the author ridicules people's need for greater distinction. The author suggests that this need stems from defensiveness and insecurity: "it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to how we explain certain qualities." (lines 41-45). The author then implies that whether a capability is classified as strictly human depends on how it is defined, thus making the classification subject to opinion and bias: "even if 'language' is so defined that the waggle dance slips in" (lines 53-54).

Question 4

Saving the Environment

(1) Preserving the environment is a monumental task, and people often have difficulty seeing the connection between what they do and the global problem. Considering how massive the problem is, shaming someone for not recycling a bottle is like yelling at someone for adding a drop of water to a flood. That one bottle is not going to ruin the environment, but 7 billion bottles will. It is certainly important for each citizen to do their part to help improve the world, but too often the onus of environmental preservation is thrust upon the least culpable offenders. Why is our attention so often focused on the daily impact of ordinary citizens rather than the corporations who are doing infinitely more harm every day?

(2) A study called the Carbon Majors Report, conducted in 2015, identified just 100 companies as responsible for 71% of global emissions. These companies are doing far more damage to the environment than average citizens, but America continues to pass legislation that softens environmental protections, allowing companies to continue striving for profit over the health of our globe. While allowing these companies to operate free of restrictions might cause a small uptick in employment, that is a very shortsighted reward considering the consequences.

(3) Governments allow these companies to continue to poison our globe while they demonize the average citizen for their minimal contribution to the problem, or worse: deny that the problem even exists. Problems don’t go away because you ignore them, and until companies are held responsible for their destructive emissions, things are only going to get worse.

(4) Perhaps the most frustrating part of our environmental woes is that the majority of the “problem” companies are invested in industries that could easily be on their way out, like coal and crude oil. Instead of pivoting and investing in new fuels, new energy sources, etc., these companies continue to bank on a dying industry. Scientists have made a lot of progress in clean energy and power, but until companies are willing to make real adjustments, we’re stuck in the stone age pumping our atmosphere full of poisons.

(5) The only way we can force companies to strive for real environmental preservation is if we continue fighting for legislation that compels them to do so. Instead of just asking average citizens to put their water bottles in a recycling bin, we can ask them to also vote with this issue in mind. Elect the right officials who will create and adopt the right legislation that will force companies to act responsibly. The fate of the globe depends on it.

Which of these is most likely the author’s purpose for writing this article?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

To point out that real environmental change will only happen when we hold private companies responsible for their contributions to the problem.. Because it represents the main point the author is trying to make. The author mentions both answer choice (B) and (D), but only in service to their main purpose, represented by choice (A).

Question 5

What is the purpose of the conclusion sentence?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

Present two possible explanations for the growing popularity of smartphones. The conclusion sentence states two possible paths that could explain the arrival of a growth in smartphone popularity. These two suppositions are guesses at what is causing this trend. Because the author injects minimal bias and leaves the answer to the reader’s interpretation, the author is simply presenting explanations as the option ‘Present two possible…’ indicates. The other options are either irrelevant or insufficiently supported by text evidence.

Question 6

The Spark that Lit the Fire

(1) On March 3, 1991, Rodney King, a construction worker from Los Angeles, was driving along California State Route 210 with two friends when police moved to pull him over. King, by his own admission, was on the way home from drinking at a friend’s house and had been drinking. In an attempt to avoid the consequences of driving under the influence, King led the police on a high-speed chase. When King chose to leave the freeway and continue to flee from the police on residential streets, several more police cars and even a police helicopter joined the chase. After about 8 miles of chasing King, the police were successfully able to corner his car and force King to surrender.

(2) It is at this moment that the controversy began. King’s two friends, both African American males, got out of the car, and by their own accounts, were mistreated by police officers. Bryant Allen claims he was beaten and stomped as he lay on the ground; Freddie Helms ended up with a cut on his head. King, an African American man himself, was reluctant to get out of the car, and when he finally did, LAPD officers swarmed him and used force to try to subdue him. A man in a nearby apartment heard the commotion and began filming the incident on a camcorder. The video footage begins with King already on the ground, and shows LAPD officers stomping King, beating him with batons, and generally using an amount of force unnecessary to subdue a man who was already on the ground.

(3) King went to the hospital, and four of the officers involved in the incident were charged with assault and use of excessive force. Despite the video clearly showing these officers beating King, the four officers were essentially acquitted of their charges. Jurors acquitted all four officers on assault charges and while they only acquitted three of the officers on charges of excessive force, they were unable to reach a decision on the fourth.

(4) The Rodney King incident was not an isolated incident; it became a very public display of a problem that African Americans had been struggling with for a long time: the police’s mistreatment of people of color. When word reached the streets of Los Angeles that these four officers had been acquitted, the community exploded. This verdict sparked the infamous LA riots, which lasted 6 days, caused 63 deaths, damaged thousands of businesses and reportedly caused almost $1 billion in financial losses. The people of Los Angeles had had enough of police abusing them and getting away with it. Police brutality is still a problem today, and all because Rodney King’s abusers went free.How does the author advance their point of view in the article?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

The author takes readers through a detailed account of the incident and the aftermath.. The author takes readers through a chronological accounting of the incident, only introducing their opinion at the end of the second paragraph. The author doesn’t present two perspectives (A), support their opinion with specific data (C), or remain unbiased throughout (D).

Question 7

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment.

However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing).

However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office.

However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

Read this sentence from the passage: A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully.

Which of these phrases best explains the meaning of the phrase “hand over the reins”?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

Give complete control. The sentence is discussing how studios would not trust a newcomer completely with a big budget film. In this case, “hand over the reins” means “to give complete control.”

Answer choice (D) is tempting because studios would be taking a risk if they were to do this, but the phrase itself doesn’t convey that sense of risk.

Question 8

If you invest $10,000 at an annual rate of 7%, how much interest will you earn after one year?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

$700. Interest = Principal x Rate = $10,000 x 0.07 = $700.

Question 9

What sequence of transformations on the blue shape will result in the red shape?

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

Rotate 90° clockwise then translate 7 units to the left. Of the four answer choices given, only answer (D) will result in the red shape.

Answer (A) results in the following:

Answer (B) results in the following:

Answer (C) results in the following:

Question 10

Solve for b: b^2 - 20 = 0

TheoryPractice · Accepted Answer

-2\sqrt{5}, 2\sqrt{5}. Let’s solve the quadratic equation for the values of b:

b^2 - 20 = 0

b^2 = 20

b = \pm \sqrt{20}

b = \pm \sqrt{4}\sqrt{5}

b = \pm 2\sqrt{5}

b = -2\sqrt{5}, 2\sqrt{5}

TABE Exam Questions & Answers 2026 (11–20)

More TABE practice questions

Free practice here. Timed mocks when you are ready.