Originally, the SAT I was meant to test aptitude and the SAT II was meant to test achievement. That is to say, one tested what you were capable of and the other tested what you knew. But when the College Board moved away from the idea that the SAT I tests innate ability, they framed it as a reasoning test, making the difference between the two less defined.
With the latest changes, the SAT I (now just the SAT) is more focused than ever testing knowledge rather than logic. At this point, I would say that the SAT tests general knowledge and and the Subject Tests assess topical knowledge.
Answer:
“Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
Explanation:
It’s hard to answer this without more information. Which author?¿ Because each author has their own ways.
