Question 39·200 Super-Hard SAT Reading Questions·Craft and Structure
Historians once interpreted civic decrees granting divine honors to Hellenistic kings as straightforward evidence that the kings’ subjects accepted royal claims to divinity. More recent scholars instead emphasize that city councils drafted such decrees while acknowledging or seeking concrete concessions. This approach has sometimes encouraged scholars to treat an honor as a retrospective payment. Calling a king “savior,” however, attached generosity to the identity that the decree publicly assigned him, giving the council and its audience a standard for judging his later conduct. The ideological language of a decree and its place in practical negotiation, then, need not point in opposite directions.
Which choice best describes the function of the underlined sentence in the text as a whole?
For a function question, distinguish the passage’s major interpretations from any narrower version that the underlined sentence qualifies. Then compare close choices for differences in scope, agency, and logical relationship—especially whether the sentence replaces an interpretation, reconciles two interpretations, or refines one without abandoning it.
Hints
Separate the interpretations
Identify the older interpretation, the newer interpretation, and the narrower version of the newer interpretation mentioned immediately before the underlined sentence.
Distinguish a standard from an exchange
Consider the difference between giving an honor for something already completed and using an honor to establish a basis for evaluating later behavior.
Examine the role of belief
Ask whether the sentence requires audiences to sincerely accept a king’s divinity or instead shows how elevated language could have a practical political effect regardless of that belief.
Step-by-step Explanation
Map the interpretations
The older interpretation treats divine honors as evidence of sincere belief in royal divinity. The newer interpretation instead emphasizes the practical negotiations between councils and kings.
Identify the narrower claim
The sentence before the underlined portion notes that the newer approach can be reduced to a purely retrospective transaction: the king provides a benefit, and the council responds with an honor.
Analyze the mechanism
The underlined sentence explains that calling a king “savior” publicly connects generosity with his royal identity. That connection gives the council and its audience a basis for evaluating what he does later, so the honor can serve an ongoing political purpose.
Determine the function
The sentence does not restore the claim that subjects sincerely believed the king was divine, nor does it abandon the political interpretation. Instead, it qualifies a narrowly transactional version of that interpretation by showing how ideological language could create future expectations.