Claude SAT Analogy Results

Below are the full results of running Anthropic’s biggest model, Claude, on SAT Analogies.

For each analogy, the first word pair is the correct answer (in bold) while the answer the model choose is green underlined.

Okay, I understand. Let’s do this SAT analogy exercise.

For the pair:

authenticity : counterfeit

The relationship is:

authenticity is the opposite of counterfeit. So I need to find another pair of words with an oppositional or antonymous relationship.

Based on this, from the choices provided, I would pick:

reliability : erratic

Because reliability implies consistency and dependability, while erratic implies inconsistency and unpredictability. So these words are also opposites or antonyms, just like authenticity and counterfeit.

The other choices do not have an directly opposite relationship:

• Mobility and energetic are related but not strictly antonymous
• Argument and contradictory are related but argument does not directly imply the opposite of contradictory
• Reserve and reticent are related but do not directly imply opposites
• Anticipation and solemn do not directly imply opposites

So by process of elimination, reliability : erratic is the only choice that matches the authenticity : counterfeit relationship. Does this make sense? Let me know if you have another analogy question you’d like me to work through!

Analogies

Correct Answers

agenda : conference
map : trip
teacher : class
executive : employee
man : woman
agency : assignment

Okay, for this analogy:

agenda : conference

The relationship here is:

An agenda is a list that provides the plan or schedule for a conference. So a conference relies on and uses an agenda.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship is:

map : trip

Because a trip relies on and uses a map. A map provides the plan and guidance for a trip, just as an agenda does for a conference.

The other choices do not show this same kind of relationship:

• Teacher : class - A teacher facilitates a class but a class does not rely on or use a teacher in the same direct way that a conference uses an agenda or a trip uses a map.
• Executive : employee - An executive oversees employees but employees do not directly rely on or make use of an executive the same way a conference uses an agenda or a trip uses a map.
• Man : woman - These do not have a direct facilitator/user relationship. They do not rely on each other in the same way.
• Agency : assignment - While an agency may give out assignments, an assignment does not directly rely on or use an agency in the way a conference uses an agenda or a trip uses a map.

So by analyzing each choice, map : trip is the one option that shows the closest relationship to the original pair’s dynamic of agenda : conference. Please let me know if this makes sense or if you have another analogy challenge for me!

fix : stable
fortify : strong
captivate : attractive
deter : active
furrow : productive
mend : torn

fix : stable

The relationship here is that to fix something means to make it stable or securely established. So I’m looking for a pair where the first word means to make the second word.

Based on this, the best choice is:

fortify : strong

To fortify means to make strong or more robust. The other options do not have this relationship:

• captivate : attractive - To captivate means to attract or allure, not specifically to make attractive.
• deter : active - To deter means to discourage or prevent, not to make active.
• furrow : productive - To furrow means to make grooves or trenches, not specifically to make productive.
• mend : torn - To mend means to repair or heal, not specifically to make torn. Torn is the state before mending.

So by process of elimination, “fortify : strong” is the only choice where the first word (fortify) means to make the second word (strong). Like “fix : stable”, it indicates a relationship of making or causing something.

Please let me know if I should explain or expand on my analysis further! I’m happy to clarify my reasoning for why the other options do not fit the relationship in the original word pair.

fugitive : flee
braggart : boast
sage : stifle
firebrand : quibble
bystander : procure
parasite : foster

Okay, for this pair:

fugitive : flee

The relationship is:

A fugitive is someone who flees or runs away. So the noun fugitive is closely tied to the verb flee.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship, where a noun is closely tied to a related verb, is:

braggart : boast

Because a braggart is someone who boasts or brags. The noun braggart is closely tied to the verb boast.

The other choices do not have this direct noun-verb relationship:

• Sage : stifle - While a sage is wise or judicious, the verb stifle means to suppress or suffocate. These words are unrelated.
• Firebrand : quibble - The noun firebrand means a troublemaker, while the verb quibble means to argue trivial details. These words are not closely tied or related.
• Bystander : procure - A bystander is someone who stands by, while procure means to obtain or acquire. These words are unrelated.
• Parasite : foster - While a parasite exploits its host, the verb foster means to promote the growth or development of something. These words are not closely tied or related.

So in summary, only braggart : boast shows the direct noun-verb relationship where the noun specifically describes someone who does the action depicted by the verb. The other choices show indirect or unrelated relationships between the noun and verb.

Let me know if this helps clarify my thinking on this type of analogy problem. I’m happy to work through any other examples!

chronological : time
ordinal : place
abnormal : value
coincidental : health
marginal : knowledge
virtual : truth

Okay, for the pair:

chronological : time

The relationship is:

Chronological means arranged by or according to time. So time is the organizing principle or basis for chronology.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship, where the first word relies on the second word as its organizing principle, is:

ordinal : place

Because ordinal means arranged by or according to place or position. So place is the organizing principle for ordinal numbers or sequences.

The other choices do not have this relationship:

• Abnormal : value - While “abnormal” means deviating from a norm or standard, “value” does not provide the basis for organizing or determining what is abnormal. Value is unrelated.
• coincidental : health - The word “coincidental” means by chance or accident, while “health” does not provide the basis for determining coincidence. Health is unrelated.
• marginal : knowledge - While “marginal” means minimal or peripheral, “knowledge” does not provide the basis for determining what is marginal. Knowledge is unrelated.
• virtual : truth - While “virtual” means simulated or artificial, “truth” does not provide the basis for organizing or distinguishing the virtual. Truth is unrelated.

So in summary, only ordinal : place shows a relationship where the first word (ordinal) relies on the second (place) as the underlying principle of organization, just as chronological relies on time. The other choices do not have this direct relational basis.

Let me know if this helps explain my thinking on this analogy problem! I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have.

soot : grimy
rain : sodden
dust : radiant
frost : transparent
pall : gaudy
sunshine : fruitless

Okay, for the pair:

soot : grimy

The relationship is:

Soot causes or results in something being grimy or filthy. So there is a causal relationship between soot and grimy.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar causal relationship is:

rain : sodden

Because rain causes or results in something becoming sodden or soaked. Rain leads to sodden, just as soot leads to grimy.

The other choices do not show this kind of direct causal relationship:

• dust : radiant - While dust could obscure radiance or shine, dust itself does not cause or directly result in radiance. Radiance can exist without dust.
• frost : transparent - Although frost may lead to ice which is transparent, frost itself does not cause or directly result in transparency. Transparency can exist without frost.
• pall : gaudy - Although a pall or dark cloud may obscure bright colors, a pall itself does not cause or directly result in gaudiness. Gaudiness can exist without a pall.
• sunshine : fruitless - Although lack of sunshine could hinder fruit growth, sunshine itself does not cause or directly result in fruitlessness. Fruitlessness can exist even with sunshine.

So in summary, only rain : sodden demonstrates a direct causal relationship where one word leads to or results in the state described by the other word. The other choices show indirect or inconsistent relationships between the words.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on causal relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

massive : bulk
gigantic : size
trivial : importance
interminable : legacy
anonymous : luster
ultimate : magnitude

Okay, for the pair:

massive : bulk

The relationship is:

Massive means extremely large in quantity, amount or degree. Bulk means large in size, mass or volume. So these words are synonyms that describe the same quality (largeness) in similar terms.

Based on this, the choice that shows a synonymous relationship is:

gigantic : size

Because gigantic also means extremely large, and size refers to dimensions, measurements or proportions. Like massive and bulk, gigantic and size are synonymous words that describe largeness.

The other choices do not show this direct synonymous relationship:

• trivial : importance - While trivial means insignificant or unimportant, importance does not refer to the same concept or share a synonymous meaning. The words are antonymous, not synonymous.
• interminable : legacy - Interminable means endless or ceaseless, while legacy refers to something handed down from the past. The words do not share a synonymous meaning.
• anonymous : luster - Anonymous means without a name or identity, while luster refers to radiance or shine. The words do not share a synonymous meaning.
• ultimate : magnitude - While ultimate can mean final or maximal, magnitude refers to greatness of size or importance. The words do not share a synonymous meaning or express the same concept.

So in summary, only gigantic : size shows a direct synonymous relationship where both words share an essentially equivalent meaning (extreme largeness). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or antonymous relationships between the words.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on synonymy. I’m happy to work through any other examples!

reinforce : stronger
erode : weaker
shirk : greater
abound : lesser
dismantle : longer
wilt : higher

reinforce : stronger

The relationship here is that reinforce means to make stronger or more solid. So I’m looking for a pair where the first word means to make more of the quality described by the second word.

Based on this, the best choice is:

erode : weaker

Erode means to make weaker or less strong over time through a gradual process of deterioration or consumption. The other options do not have this relationship:

• shirk : greater - To shirk means to avoid or neglect, it does not mean to make greater.
• abound : lesser - To abound means to exist in large numbers or amounts. It does not mean to make lesser.
• dismantle : longer - To dismantle means to take apart, not to make longer.
• wilt : higher - To wilt means to become limp or droop, not to make higher.

So by process of elimination, “erode : weaker” is the only choice where the first word (erode) means to make more of what the second word (weaker) is describing. Like “reinforce : stronger”, it indicates a relationship of making more or intensifying.

Please let me know if I should explain or expand on my analysis further! I’m happy to clarify my reasoning for why the other options do not fit the relationship in the original word pair.

embarrass : humiliate
pilfer : steal
reduce : enlarge
labor : succeed
bicker : fight
spank : whip

embarrass : humiliate

The relationship here is that embarrass and humiliate are synonyms, meaning essentially the same thing. They both refer to causing someone to feel ashamed or foolish.

Based on this, the pair with the same synonymous relationship is:

pilfer : steal

These words are synonyms, both meaning to take something in a wrongful or unlawful way. The other options do not have this synonymous relationship:

• reduce : enlarge - These are antonyms, opposites.
• labor : succeed - These words are related but not synonyms. One can labor to succeed but they have different core meanings.
• bicker : fight - Again these words are related but bicker implies a petty or minor fight, while fight is more general. So not strictly synonyms.
• spank : whip - These are related forms of corporal punishment but have different meanings and severities, so not synonymous.

Therefore, by process of elimination, the choice that is most synonymous is “pilfer : steal” since those two words have essentially the same meaning, just like “embarrass : humiliate”. Please let me know if I should clarify or expand on my analysis further!

equanimity : harried
moderation : dissolute
erudition : urbane
intuition : logical
distinction : singular
celebrity : infamous

Okay, for the pair:

equanimity : harried

The relationship is:

These words are antonyms. Equanimity means calmness or composure, while harried means worried, stressed or agitated. The meanings are opposite.

Based on this, the choice that shows an antonymous relationship is:

moderation : dissolute

Because moderation and dissolute are also antonyms. Moderation means restraint or temperance, while dissolute means lacking restraint or excessive. The meanings are opposite.

The other choices do not show a direct antonymous relationship:

• erudition : urbane - While an erudite person may also be urbane or refined, the words themselves are not antonyms. Erudition means great knowledge or learning, while urbane means courteous or polished. The meanings are unrelated, not opposite.
• intuition : logical - While intuition suggests spontaneity and logic suggests reasoning, the words themselves are not direct antonyms. Intuition means insight or perception, while logical means rational or reasonable. The meanings differ but are not strictly opposite.
• distinction : singular - Although being singular or unique could result in distinction, the words themselves are not antonyms. Distinction refers to excellence or eminence, while singular means alone or unique. The meanings are unrelated, not opposite.
• celebrity : infamous - Although some celebrities become infamous, the words themselves are not antonyms. Celebrity means fame or renown, while infamous means notoriously bad or unlawful. The meanings differ in connotation but are not strictly opposite.

So in summary, only moderation : dissolute shows a direct antonymous relationship where the meanings of the words are opposite or contrary. The other choices demonstrate more indirect or inconsistent relationships between the meanings.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on antonymy. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

runner : marathon
oarsman : regatta
referee : tournament
martyr : massacre
envoy : embassy
horse : stable

Okay, for the pair:

runner : marathon

The relationship is:

A runner participates in and competes in a marathon. So there is a direct participatory relationship between the words.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar participatory relationship is:

oarsman : regatta

Because an oarsman participates in and competes in a regatta. Like a runner in a marathon, an oarsman takes part in a regatta.

The other choices do not show this direct participatory relationship:

• referee : tournament - While a referee officiates or supervises a tournament, a referee does not participate or compete in the same way that a runner does in a marathon or an oarsman does in a regatta. The relationship is indirect.
• martyr : massacre - Although a martyr may die in a massacre, a martyr does not choose to participate or directly compete in a massacre in the same willing manner as a runner in a marathon or oarsman in a regatta. The relationship is coincidental, not directly participatory.
• envoy : embassy - An envoy may work at an embassy but does not participate or compete in an embassy in the same manner as a runner in a marathon or oarsman in a regatta. The relationship is occupational, not directly participatory.
• horse : stable - While a horse is housed in a stable, a horse does not willingly participate or compete in a stable in the same manner as a runner in a marathon or oarsman in a regatta. The horse does not choose to take part but is rather just kept in the stable. The relationship is incidental, not directly participatory.

So in summary, only oarsman : regatta shows a direct participatory relationship equivalent to that of runner : marathon. The other choices show more indirect, coincidental or incidental relationships between the words.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on participation or competition. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

medicine : illness
law : anarchy
stimulant : sensitivity
etiquette : discipline
love : treason
hunger : thirst

Okay, for the pair:

medicine : illness

The relationship is:

Medicine is used to treat or remedy an illness. So there is a relationship of remedy or solution to a problem.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship is:

law : anarchy

Because laws are used to remedy or solve the problem of anarchy or disorder. Like medicine treats illness, laws address anarchy.

The other choices do not show this remedial or solution-based relationship:

• stimulant : sensitivity - While a stimulant could increase sensitivity, a stimulant is not used to directly remedy or solve sensitivity. Sensitivity can exist without the use of a stimulant. The relationship is coincidental, not directly remedial.
• etiquette : discipline - Etiquette and discipline are unrelated concepts. Etiquette refers to politeness or courtesy while discipline refers to training or control. Etiquette does not remedy discipline or address it as a problem to be solved. The relationship is indirect at best.
• love : treason - While treason could be seen as a betrayal of love or trust, love itself does not remedy or solve the problem of treason. Treason can occur irrespective of the presence of love. The relationship is coincidental, not directly remedial.
• hunger : thirst - Hunger and thirst are unrelated bodily needs or drives. Hunger does not remedy or solve the problem of thirst. The relationship is indirect. They are two separate issues or experiences.

So in summary, only law : anarchy shows a remedial relationship directly equivalent to that of medicine : illness. The other choices demonstrate indirect, coincidental or inconsistent relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on remedy or solution. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

extort : obtain
plagiarize : borrow
explode : ignite
purify : strain
pilfer : steal
consider : appeal

Okay, for the pair:

extort : obtain

The relationship is:

While extort means to obtain something through force, threat or coercion, obtain simply means to get or acquire something. So extort implies a more forceful or unjustified means of obtaining something compared to a simpler obtain. The relationship is one of more extreme means to the same ends.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship is:

plagiarize : borrow

Because plagiarize means to get or acquire (ideas, words, etc.) from another source through unjustified or uncredited means, compared to the simpler borrow which just means to acquire temporarily with the intent to return. Like extort, plagiarize implies a more unjustified or forceful means to the same goal of obtaining something.

The other choices do not show this relationship of more extreme means to the same end:

• explode : ignite - While igniting something could lead to an explosion, ignite itself does not imply a more extreme version of exploding. The relationship is indirect or coincidental, not directly comparable.
• purify : strain - While straining something could be a step in purifying it, strain itself does not imply an more extreme version of purifying. Purifying can be achieved through gentle and non-forceful means as well. The relationship is indirect.
• pilfer : steal - Although related, neither word implies an unambiguously more extreme version of acquiring something. Steal and pilfer can both span a range from petty theft to more serious larceny. The relationship is inconsistent.
• consider : appeal - These words are largely unrelated. To consider something does not imply a more extreme version of appealing to something. The relationship is indirect at best.

So in summary, only plagiarize : borrow shows a directly comparable relationship where one word (plagiarize) implies a more unjustified or forceful means to the same end described by the other word (borrow). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the meanings.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on extreme or unjustified means versus more neutral means to the same outcome or end. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

disorganized : system
traitorous : loyalty
greedy : money
athletic : intelligence
retired : hope
conserve : party

Okay, for the pair:

disorganized : system

The relationship is:

Disorganized implies a lack or absence of organization or system. So there is an oppositional relationship between the terms, with one (disorganized) implying the lack of what the other (system) represents.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar oppositional relationship is:

traitorous : loyalty

Because traitorous implies a lack or absence of loyalty. Like disorganized opposes system, traitorous opposes loyalty.

The other choices do not show this kind of direct oppositional relationship:

• greedy : money - While greed may motivate the pursuit or hoarding of money, greed itself does not imply a lack of money. Money can exist without greed. The relationship is coincidental or indirect, not directly oppositional.
• athletic : intelligence - Athletic ability does not imply a lack of intelligence. Intelligence is unrelated to athletics. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• retired : hope - Retirement does not imply a lack of hope. Hope can continue even after retirement. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• conserve : party - To conserve does not directly imply opposition to partying. Partying and conservation are largely unrelated concepts. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.

So in summary, only traitorous : loyalty demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to disorganized : system, where one term (traitorous) implies a lack or absence of what the other (loyalty) represents. The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on opposition or contradiction. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

topaz : yellow
amethyst : purple
sapphire : red
amber : blue
jeweler : clarity
diamond : carat

Okay, for the pair:

topaz : yellow

The relationship is:

Topaz is characteristically yellow in color. So there is a relationship of characteristic property or feature.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship is:

amethyst : purple

Because amethyst is characteristically purple in color. Like topaz is characteristically yellow, amethyst is characteristically purple.

The other choices do not show this kind of characteristic property relationship:

• sapphire : red - Sapphires are not characteristically red in color. While some rare varieties may be reddish, sapphires more typically come in blues. So red is not a characteristic property of sapphires.
• amber : blue - Amber is not characteristically blue in color. Amber is typically yellowish orange. So blue is not a characteristic property of amber.
• jeweler : clarity - A jeweler does not have clarity as a characteristic property. Jewelers are people, not gemstones. The relationship is indirect or coincidental.
• diamond : carat - While a diamond’s size may be measured in carats, carat itself is not a characteristic property of diamonds like color is for topaz or amethyst. The relationship is indirect.

So in summary, only amethyst : purple shows a relationship directly comparable to topaz : yellow, where one term (amethyst) has as a characteristic property the feature described by the other term (purple). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on characteristic properties or features. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

clumsy : botch
lazy : shirk
clever : eradicate
willful : heed
wicked : insinuate
strict : pamper

Okay, for the pair:

clumsy : botch

The relationship is:

Someone who is clumsy is prone or likely to botch or bungle things. So there is a relationship of tendency or propensity. Clumsiness leads to or results in botching.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of tendency or propensity is:

lazy : shirk

Because someone who is lazy is prone or likely to shirk responsibility. Like clumsiness leads to botching, laziness leads to shirking.

The other choices do not show this kind of relationship of tendency or propensity:

• clever : eradicate - Being clever does not directly imply a tendency to eradicate or destroy things. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• willful : heed - Being willful does not necessarily imply a propensity to heed warnings. The relationship is inconsistent. Willful people may ignore as well as heed.
• wicked : insinuate - Being wicked does not directly imply a tendency to insinuate or hint in an unpleasant way. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• strict : pamper - Being strict contradicts a propensity to pamper or indulge. The relationship is oppositional, not one of tendency. Strictness does not lead to pampering.

So in summary, only lazy : shirk demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to clumsy : botch, where one term (lazy) implies a propensity or tendency described by the other term (shirk). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or contradictory relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on tendency, propensity or likelihood. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

lumen : brightness
inches : length
candle : light
density : darkness
nickel : metal
color : hue

Okay, for the pair:

lumen : brightness

The relationship is:

Lumen is a measure or quantitative expression of brightness. So there is a relationship of measure to the thing being measured.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar measure-measurement relationship is:

inches : length

Because inches represent a measure or quantitive expression of length. Like lumens measure brightness, inches measure length.

The other choices do not show this kind of direct measure-measurement relationship:

• candle : light - While a candle produces light, candle itself is not a measure of light. The relationship is means-ends, not measure-measurement.
• density : darkness - Density does not measure darkness. Density refers to how closely packed or crowded something is. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• nickel : metal - While a nickel is a metal, nickel itself is not a measure of metal. Nickel simply refers to the metal itself, not a measure of it. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• color : hue - While color and hue are related concepts, neither one strictly measures or quantifies the other. The relationship is coincidental. They refer to the same basic idea at different levels of specificity.

So in summary, only inches : length demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to lumen : brightness, where one term (inches) represents a measure or quantitive expression of the quality described by the other term (length). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or simply coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on measure-measurement relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

enfranchise : slavery
liberate : confine
anatomy : physiology
equation : mathematics
bondage : subjugation
appeasement : unreasonable

Okay, for the pair:

enfranchise : slavery

The relationship is:

To enfranchise is to free from slavery or oppression. So there is a relationship of freeing or release from something undesirable.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of freeing from something undesirable is:

liberate : confine

Because to liberate is to free from confinement. Like enfranchising frees from slavery, liberating frees from confinement.

The other choices do not show this kind of freeing relationship:

• anatomy : physiology - Anatomy does not free from physiology. These concepts are related but not in a freeing or liberating manner. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• equation : mathematics - An equation does not free from mathematics. Equation is an expression of mathematics, not a release from it. The relationship is coincidental or constitutive.
• bondage : subjugation - These words describe undesirable states but do not represent freeing from one another. Bondage and subjugation are related but mutually reinforcing concepts, not means of release from one another. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• appeasement : unreasonable - Appeasement does not represent a freeing from the unreasonable. In fact, the opposite may be argued. The relationship is inconsistent or contradictory.

So in summary, only liberate : confine demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to enfranchise : slavery, representing a freeing or release from something undesirable. The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or contradictory relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on relationships of liberating or freeing from something else. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

walk : legs
chew : mouth
grind : nose
gleam : eyes
dress : hem
cover : book

Okay, for the pair:

walk : legs

The relationship is:

Walking requires the use of legs. So there is a relationship of necessity or requirement. Legs are necessary or required for walking.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of necessity or requirement is:

chew : mouth

Because chewing requires the use of the mouth. Like legs are necessary for walking, the mouth is necessary for chewing.

The other choices do not show this kind of necessity relationship:

• grind : nose - While the nose can detect grinding, the nose is not necessary or required for grinding. Grinding can occur without using the nose. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• gleam : eyes - Although the eyes can perceive a gleam, eyes are not necessary or required to produce a gleam. A gleam can exist without eyes. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• dress : hem - While a hem is part of a dress, a hem itself is not necessary or required to have or wear a dress. A dress can exist without a hem. The relationship is coincidental or constitutive, not necessity-based.
• cover : book - Although a cover protects or encloses a book, a cover is not necessary or required for a book to exist or function as a book. A book can exist without a cover. The relationship is indirect.

So in summary, only chew : mouth demonstrates a relationship of necessity directly comparable to walk : legs, where one concept (mouth) is necessary or required for the other concept (chewing) to function or exist. The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on necessity or requirement relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

cot : bed
tissue : handkerchief
tea : lemon
hotel : motel
hand : finger
lesson : composition

Okay, for the pair:

cot : bed

The relationship is:

A cot is a simpler or smaller version of a bed. So there is a relationship of more basic or fundamental to more complex. Cot represents a more basic concept than bed.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship is:

tissue : handkerchief

Because a tissue is a simpler or more basic version of a handkerchief. Like cot is more basic than bed, tissue is more basic than handkerchief.

The other choices do not show this relationship of more basic to more complex:

• tea : lemon - Although lemon is sometimes added to tea, lemon itself is not a more basic or fundamental form of tea. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• hotel : motel - While a motel may be more basic than a hotel, motel does not represent a simpler version of the same essential concept as hotel. They refer to different types of lodging. The relationship is indirect.
• hand : finger - Although fingers are parts of a hand, neither concept is more basic or simpler than the other. They exist at the same level, in mutual dependence. The relationship is constitutive, not degree-based.
• lesson : composition - Although lessons may be involved in composing a composition, lesson itself does not represent a more basic or simpler version of composition. The relationship is indirect or coincidental.

So in summary, only tissue : handkerchief demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to cot : bed, where one concept (tissue) represents a more basic, simple or fundamental version of the other, more complex concept (handkerchief). The other choices show indirect, coincidental or inconsistent relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on differences in complexity, simplicity or degree of refinement. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

sodden : moist
maudlin : sentimental
wet : liquid
nostalgic : emotional
assertive : bold
arid : harsh

Okay, for the pair:

sodden : moist

The relationship is:

Sodden implies a greater or more extreme degree of wetness than moist. So there is a relationship of greater or lesser intensity or extent. Sodden represents a more intense concept than moist.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of degree or intensity is:

maudlin : sentimental

Because maudlin implies a greater or more extreme degree of sentimentality than sentimental. Like sodden is more extreme than moist, maudlin is more extreme than sentimental.

The other choices do not show this kind of degree-based relationship:

• wet : liquid - Although something wet comes into contact with liquid, wet itself does not imply a clearly greater or lesser degree of intensity than liquid. They exist independently. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• nostalgic : emotional - Although nostalgia can evoke emotion, neither concept inherently implies a greater or lesser intensity than the other. Emotional intensity can vary regardless of nostalgia. The relationship is indirect.
• assertive : bold - Although related, neither concept directly implies a greater or lesser degree of intensity. The intensity of boldness or assertiveness can vary. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• arid : harsh - Although an arid climate can seem harsh, arid itself does not directly imply a greater intensity or extremity than harsh. Harsh conditions can exist independent of aridity. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.

So in summary, only maudlin : sentimental demonstrates a degree-based relationship directly comparable to sodden : moist, where one concept (maudlin) implies a greater intensity, extremity or degree than the other (sentimental). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on differences in intensity, degree or extremity. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

paltry : significance
banal : originality
austere : landscape
redundant : discussion
oblique : familiarity
opulent : wealth

Okay, for the pair:

paltry : significance

The relationship is:

Paltry means lacking significance or importance. So there is an oppositional relationship where paltry implies the absence or lack of what significance represents.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar oppositional relationship is:

banal : originality

Because banal means lacking originality or freshness. Like paltry opposes significance, banal opposes originality.

The other choices do not show this kind of directly oppositional relationship:

• austere : landscape - Although an austere landscape may seem bare or lacking adornment, austere itself does not directly imply an absence of landscape. Landscape can incorporate austerity. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• redundant : discussion - While a redundant discussion may be pointless or unnecessary, redundant itself does not directly imply an absence or lack of discussion. Discussions can continue even when redundant. The relationship is inconsistent.
• oblique : familiarity - Although the oblique is indirect or unclear, oblique itself does not directly imply an absence of familiarity. Familiarity can co-exist with obliqueness or indirectness. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• opulent : wealth - While opulence implies abundance of wealth, opulent itself does not imply an absence of wealth. Wealth is not opposed but rather reinforced by opulence. The relationship is inconistent.

So in summary, only banal : originality demonstrates a directly oppositional relationship comparable to paltry : significance, where one concept (banal) implies an absence or lack of what the other represents (originality). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on opposition or contradiction. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

entice : repel
flourish : fade
implore : entreat
officiate : preside
germinate : sprout
lubricate : grease

Okay, for the pair:

entice : repel

The relationship is:

These words are opposites. To entice means to attract or lure, while to repel means to drive away or discourage. So there is a directly oppositional relationship.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similarly opposite or contradictory relationship is:

flourish : fade

Because to flourish means to grow or thrive, while to fade means to deteriorate or wither. Like entice and repel, flourish and fade are opposites.

The other choices do not show this kind of directly oppositional relationship:

• implore : entreat - These words are synonyms, not antonyms. They have essentially the same meaning: to plead or beg earnestly. The relationship is one of equivalence, not opposition.
• officiate : preside - These words are also synonyms, meaning to serve in a position of authority over a ceremony, meeting or other event. Again, the relationship is one of equivalence, not contradiction.
• germinate : sprout - These words are related but not strictly opposites. To germinate means to begin to grow, while to sprout means to bud or put forth shoots. The concepts are linked but not directly opposed. The relationship is coincidental or reinforcing.
• lubricate : grease - These words are synonyms, meaning to apply a slippery substance to reduce friction. The relationship is one of equivalence, not opposition.

So in summary, only flourish : fade demonstrates an directly oppositional relationship comparable to entice : repel. The other choices show synonymous, coincidental or reinforcing relationships between the concepts, but not contradiction.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on opposition and contradiction. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

author : literate
judge : impartial
cynic : gullible
doctor : fallible
hothead : prudent
saint : notorious

Okay, for the pair:

author : literate

The relationship is:

Authors are associated with or require literacy. So there is a relationship of association or relation between the concepts, although one does not strictly imply the other. Authors typically possess or value literacy but literacy itself does not define an author.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of association is:

judge : impartial

Because judges are associated with or aspire to impartiality, however impartiality itself does not define a judge. Like authors are associated with literacy, judges are associated with impartiality.

The other choices do not show this kind of associated relationship:

• cynic : gullible - While cynicism opposes gullibility, cynicism itself does not imply an association with gullibility. The relationship is oppositional, not associative.
• doctor : fallible - Although doctors should recognize human fallibility, including their own, being a doctor does not inherently imply an association with or relation to fallibility. Competence, not fallibility, is associated with doctoring. The relationship is inconsistent.
• hothead : prudent - These concepts are opposites, not associated or related. A hothead personality contradicts prudence. The relationship is oppositional, not associative.
• saint : notorious - Sainthood implies an association with virtue or holiness, not notoriety or disrepute. Notoriety would undermine, not support, sainthood. The relationship is inconsistent or contradictory.

So in summary, only judge : impartial demonstrates an associative relationship comparable to author : literate, where the concepts are related or linked but one does not strictly define or imply the other. The other choices depict oppositional, contradictory or inconsistent relationships between the concepts rather than association.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on relationships of association or relation. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

turtle : reptile
oak : tree
leaf : branch
oyster : clam
snail : shellfish
snake : rattle

Okay, for the pair:

turtle : reptile

The relationship is:

A turtle is a kind of reptile. So there is a relationship of type to category, where turtle represents a specific instance or example of the broader category of reptiles.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of type to category is:

oak : tree

Because an oak is a type or kind of tree. Like turtle is a reptile, oak is a tree.

The other choices do not show this direct type-category relationship:

• leaf : branch - While a leaf may grow from a branch, a leaf itself is not a type or specific example of a branch. A branch is a broader category of tree part, while a leaf is a distinct entity. The relationship is coincidental or constitutive, not strictly type-category.
• oyster : clam - Although related types of shellfish, oysters and clams belong to separate categories. An oyster is not a specific kind of clam. The relationship is coincidental, not strictly type-category.
• snail : shellfish - While a snail could be considered an example of shellfish, snail represents a distinct category in itself. Not all shellfish are snails. The relationship is inconsistent and imprecise. A snail is not a type of shellfish in the same way an oak is a type of tree.
• snake : rattle - A rattle is not a type or category of snake. A rattle is a distinct anatomical feature that some snakes possess. The relationship is coincidental or inconsistent.

So in summary, only oak : tree demonstrates a directly comparable type-category relationship to turtle : reptile. The other choices show broad, imprecise or coincidental relationships between the concepts, but not a strict type-category dynamic.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on type-category relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

concomitant : accompanying
loyal : staunch
separate : attached
rough : texture
tanned : leather
hard : granite

Okay, for the pair:

concomitant : accompanying

The relationship is:

These words are synonyms. Concomitant means occurring or existing concurrently with something else. Accompanying means existing or happening along with something else. So they have essentially the same meaning.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similarly synonymous relationship is:

loyal : staunch

Because loyal and staunch are also synonyms. Loyal means faithful or steadfast in allegiance, while staunch means steadfastly loyal or devoted. Like concomitant and accompanying, loyal and staunch have essentially the same meaning.

The other choices do not show this kind of direct synonymous relationship:

• separate : attached - These words are antonyms, not synonyms. Separate means detached or unconnected, while attached means joined or connected. The meanings are opposite, not equivalent.
• rough : texture - Although something rough has a coarse texture, rough itself does not share the same meaning as texture. Rough means uneven or jagged, while texture refers to the feel, appearance or consistency of a surface. The relationship is coincidental or indirect, not synonymous.
• tanned : leather - Although leather is often tanned, the words themselves do not share the same meaning. Tanned means having a suntanned complexion, while leather refers to treated animal hide material. The relationship is reinforcing but the meanings differ.
• hard : granite - Although granite is hard, the words themselves do not share the same meaning. Hard means firm, dense or difficult to bend or break. Granite refers to a specific type of rock. The relationship is reinforcing but the meanings differ.

So in summary, only loyal : staunch demonstrates a directly synonymous relationship equivalent to concomitant : accompanying. The other choices show antonymous, indirect or coincidental relationships between the words, but not synonymy.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on synonymous relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

Incorrect Answers

maven : expertise
supplicant : humility
athlete : determination
monarch : wisdom
neophyte : honesty
klutz : grace

Okay, for the pair:

maven : expertise

The relationship is:

A maven possesses or displays expertise. So there is a relationship of trait to the person characterized by that trait. Expertise defines or identifies a maven.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of trait to individual is:

athlete : determination

Because determination defines or characterizes an athlete. Like expertise identifies a maven, determination identifies an athlete.

The other choices do not show this direct trait-individual relationship:

• monarch : wisdom - While ideal monarchs may be wise, wisdom itself does not strictly define or characterize a monarch. Monarchs can lack wisdom. And wisdom does not imply monarchy. The relationship is inconsistent or imprecise.
• neophyte : honesty - Although related, neither word strictly defines or characterizes the other. A neophyte may value honesty but is not defined solely by it. And honesty does not imply neophyte status. The relationship is indirect or coincidental.
• klutz : grace - These words represent opposing concepts, not a trait-individual relationship. Klutziness implies a lack of grace, not possession of a defining characteristic. The relationship is oppositional, not trait-based.
• supplicant : humility - Although a supplicant may display humility in petitioning others, humility itself does not strictly define or characterize a supplicant. And one can be humble without supplicating. The relationship is coincidental or indirect, not equivalent to expertise defining a maven.

So in summary, only athlete : determination shows a directly comparable relationship to maven : expertise, where a characteristic or quality (determination) identifies or defines a particular kind of person (athlete). The other choices show oppositional, inconsistent or indirect relationships that do not reflect this dynamic.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on relationships of traits to individuals. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

morbid : unfavorable
reputable : favorable
disputatious : favorable
maternal : unfavorable
vigilant : unfavorable
lax : favorable

Okay, for the pair:

morbid : unfavorable

The relationship is:

These words are synonyms. Morbid means characterized by or appealing to unhealthy or unwholesome interest, while unfavorable means not giving support or approval. So they share a similar meaning of being negative, undesirable or objectionable.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar synonymous relationship is:

disputatious : favorable

Because disputatious also means tending to argue or provoke argument, which has an unfavorable connotation. And favorable, like unfavorable, means expressing approval or support. So disputatious and unfavorable share an essentially synonymous meaning, like morbid and unfavorable.

The other choices do not show this kind of synonymous relationship:

• maternal : unfavorable - Maternal means relating to or characteristic of a mother, which typically has a favorable rather than unfavorable connotation. The terms have an inconsistent or contradictory relationship, not a synonymous one.
• vigilant : unfavorable - Vigilant means being carefully observant or on the alert, which does not inherently have an unfavorable meaning. One can be vigilantly concerned as well as vigilantly suspicious or worried. The terms have an indirect or inconsistent relationship, not strictly synonymous.
• lax : favorable - Lax means lacking in rigor or discipline, which typically has an unfavorable rather than favorable connotation. The terms have an inconsistent or contradictory relationship, not a synonymous one.
• reputable : favorable - Although related, these terms do not have precisely the same meaning. Reputable means having a good reputation or trusted name, while favorable means expressing approval or support. But one can have a good reputation without actively approving or supporting something else. The relationship is indirect, not strictly synonymous.

So in summary, only disputatious : favorable demonstrates a directly synonymous relationship like that of morbid : unfavorable. The other choices show inconsistent, contradictory or indirect relationships between the terms, but not synonymy.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on synonymous relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

braggart : modesty
fledgling : experience
invalid : malady
wallflower : timidity
embezzler : greed
candidate : ambition

Okay, for the pair:

braggart : modesty

The relationship is:

These concepts are opposites. A braggart lacks modesty or humility. So there is an oppositional relationship.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similarly opposite relationship is:

invalid : malady

Because invalidity implies a lack of disease or malady. Like braggart contrasts with modesty, invalid contrasts with malady.

The other choices do not show this kind of direct opposite relationship:

• wallflower : timidity - Although related, neither concept strictly implies an absence of the other. Someone described as a wallflower may be timid in some situations but not others. And timidity itself does not preclude social interaction. The relationship is inconsistent or indirect.
• embezzler : greed - While greed may motivate embezzlement, greed itself does not imply a lack of embezzlement. Embezzlement can exist apart from greed as a motivating factor. The relationship is coincidental or indirect, not strictly oppositional.
• candidate : ambition - Although related, neither concept inherently implies an absence of the other. A candidate may be ambitious but ambition does not define a candidate. And one can be ambitious without becoming a candidate. The relationship is reinforcing but indirect.
• fledgling : experience - While a fledgling lacks experience, inexperience itself does not define a fledgling. And one can gain experience without retaining the status of a fledgling. The relationship is inconsistent or imprecise. Lacking experience alone does not make one a fledgling.

So in summary, only invalid : malady demonstrates a directly opposite relationship comparable to that of braggart : modesty. The other choices show indirect, imprecise or coincidental relationships between the concepts, but not strict opposition.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on opposition or contradiction. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

juror : judge
doctor : cure
criminal : sentence
broom : sweep
umpire : oust
decision : vacillate

Okay, for the pair:

juror : judge

The relationship is:

A juror delivers a verdict under the guidance of a judge. So there is a relationship of subordinate to authority, where one concept (juror) relies on or is subject to the other (judge).

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of subordinate to authority is:

criminal : sentence

Because a criminal is subject to the authority of a sentence imposed by the justice system. Like a juror relies on a judge, a criminal is subject to the authority of a sentence.

The other choices do not show this kind of direct subordinate-authority relationship:

• broom : sweep - Although a broom is used to sweep, a broom itself does not rely on the authority of sweeping. Sweeping requires the use of a broom, not the other way around. The relationship is reversed.
• umpire : oust - An umpire does not rely on the authority of ousting or removing someone. Ousting may undermine an umpire’s authority. The relationship is inconsistent or contradictory.
• doctor : cure - While doctors aim to cure illness, doctors themselves do not rely on or are subject to the authority of cures. Doctors utilize cures and treatments in practicing medicine. The relationship is inconsistent.
• decision : vacillate - Although indecision could delay or undermine a decision, a decision itself does not rely on or are subject to indecision or vacillation. Decisiveness contrasts with indecision. The relationship is oppositional, not subordinate-authority.

So in summary, only criminal : sentence demonstrates a directly comparable subordinate-authority relationship to that of juror : judge. The other choices show reversed, inconsistent or oppositional relationships between the concepts, but not the dynamic of one relying on the authority of the other.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on subordinate-authority relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

invariable : change
ineffable : expression
varied : appearance
unfathomable : depth
incurable : disease
extraneous : proposition

Okay, for the pair:

invariable : change

The relationship is:

These words are opposites. Invariable means unchanging or constant, while change means alteration or fluctuation.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similarly opposite relationship is:

varied : appearance

Because varied means changing or diverse, while unvaried or invariable implies consistency of appearance. Like invariable opposes change, varied contrasts with invariable appearance.

The other choices do not show this kind of direct opposite relationship:

• unfathomable : depth - Although something unfathomably deep cannot be fully measured or understood, unfathomable itself does not imply a lack of depth. Depth and unfathomability can co-exist. The relationship is reinforcing but not strictly oppositional.
• incurable : disease - While we may wish to cure diseases, incurability itself does not imply an absence of disease. Both incurable diseases and curable diseases can exist. The relationship is coincidental, not directly oppositional.
• ineffable : expression - Although ineffable means inexpressible or unable to be described in words, ineffability itself does not imply an inability to be expressed in other ways. Self-expression can take many forms. The relationship is inconsistent or indirect.
• extraneous : proposition - Although something extraneous is unnecessary or irrelevant, extraneous itself does not imply an absence of propositions or possibilities. Multiple propositions, both necessary and extraneous, can exist simultaneously. The relationship is coincidental, not directly oppositional.

So in summary, only varied : appearance demonstrates a directly opposite relationship comparable to invariable : change. The other choices show indirect, coincidental or inconsistent relationships between the concepts, but not strict opposition.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on opposition or contradiction. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

sullen : brood
docile : obey
lethargic : cavort
despondent : laugh
regal : cringe
poised : blunder

Okay, for the pair:

sullen : brood

The relationship is:

Someone who is sullen is likely to brood or be moodily depressed. So there is a relationship of tendency or propensity where one concept (sullen) leads to or is associated with the other (brood).

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of tendency or likelihood is:

lethargic : cavort

Because someone who is lethargic is unlikely to cavort or frolic enthusiastically. Like sullenness is associated with brooding, lethargy precludes cavorting.

The other choices do not show this kind of relationship based on tendency or propensity:

• despondent : laugh - Although a despondent person is unlikely to laugh cheerfully, despondence itself does not directly imply an inability to laugh. Laughter can occur even in times of despondency. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• docile : obey - While a docile person is easily obedient, docility itself does not imply a propensity to obey. Obedience relies on external direction, not an inherent tendency. The relationship is reinforcing but not based primarily on tendency.
• regal : cringe - Although a regal or noble manner may seem opposed to cringing, regality itself does not imply a direct tendency away from cringing. The relationship is oppositional but not based primarily on tendency or propensity.
• poised : blunder - While poise may make blundering less likely, poise itself does not imply a direct inability to blunder. Blundering can occur even in poised individuals. The relationship is inconsistent or indirect.

So in summary, only lethargic : cavort demonstrates a relationship of tendency directly comparable to sullen : brood. The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or oppositional relationships, but not primarily based on propensity or likelihood.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on relationships of tendency and propensity. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

humdrum : bore
heartrending : move
nutritious : sicken
stodgy : excite
pending : worry
grim : amuse

Okay, for the pair:

humdrum : bore

The relationship is:

Something that is humdrum is boring or monotonous. So there is an oppositional relationship where humdrum implies the absence or opposite of what bore represents.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar oppositional relationship is:

nutritious : sicken

Because nutritious implies health or nourishment while sicken implies illness or being unwell. Like humdrum is the opposite of bore, nutritious is the opposite of sicken.

The other choices do not show this kind of directly oppositional relationship:

• stodgy : excite - Although stodgy implies dullness which opposes excitement, stodgy itself does not directly imply the absence or opposite of excite. Excitement can exist apart from stodginess. The relationship is inconsistent.
• heartrending : move - Although heartrending suggests an emotional experience, it does not directly imply the absence or opposite of moving something. The experience of being moved can exist apart from heartrending emotions. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• pending : worry - Although something pending may provoke worry, pending itself does not directly imply the absence or opposite of worry. Worry can arise for reasons apart from something pending or unresolved. The relationship is inconsistent or coincidental.
• grim : amuse - Although grim suggests somberness which contrasts with amusement, grim itself does not directly imply the absence or opposite of amuse. Amusement can exist apart from grim circumstances. The relationship is inconsistent.

So in summary, only nutritious : sicken demonstrates a directly oppositional relationship comparable to humdrum : bore, where one concept (nutritious) implies the absence or opposite of what the other represents (sicken). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on opposition or contradiction. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

hospitable : courtesy
vindictive : spite
despondent : glee
leisurely : haste
morbid : cheerfulness
infamous : honor

Okay, for the pair:

hospitable : courtesy

The relationship is:

Someone who is hospitable shows courtesy or kindness to their guests. So there is a relationship where one concept (hospitable) leads to or results in what the other represents (courtesy).

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship where one concept results in what the other represents is:

despondent : glee

Because someone who is despondent lacks glee or cheer. Like hospitable leads to courtesy, despondent precludes glee.

The other choices do not show this kind of relationship where one concept results in or precludes the other:

• leisurely : haste - While leisurely implies a lack of haste, leisurely itself does not directly result in or preclude haste. Haste can exist separately from leisureliness. The relationship is oppositional but not directly dependent.
• vindictive : spite - Although related, neither concept inherently results in or precludes the other. They reinforce each other but do not rely on one another. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• morbid : cheerfulness - While morbid implies a lack of cheer, morbid itself does not directly result in or preclude cheerfulness. Cheerfulness can exist apart from morbidity. The relationship is oppositional but not directly dependent.
• infamous : honor - Although related, neither concept inherently results in or precludes the other. Infamy and honor can co-exist or occur separately. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.

So in summary, only despondent : glee demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to hospitable : courtesy, where one concept (despondent) results in or precludes what the other represents (glee). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or oppositional but not directly dependent relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on dependent or resultant relationships between concepts. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

drip : gush
dent : destroy
curl : roll
stream : tributary
cry : laugh
bend : angle

Okay, for the pair:

drip : gush

The relationship is:

To drip implies a slower, more gradual flow than to gush, which implies flowing more quickly or freely. So there is a relationship of lesser or greater intensity or degree. Gush represents a more intense degree of the same essential action (flowing) as drip.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of lesser or greater intensity is:

curl : roll

Because to curl implies twisting in a slower, more gradual manner than to roll, which implies twisting more vigorously or freely. Like gush is a more intense version of drip, roll is a more intense version of curl.

The other choices do not show this kind of relationship based on intensity or degree:

• stream : tributary - While related, neither of these concepts implies a clearly greater or lesser intensity than the other. The flow of a stream vs a tributary can vary. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.
• dent : destroy - Although a dent could be a step towards destruction, dent itself does not imply a clearly lesser intensity than destroy. The intensity of damage can vary in either concept. The relationship is inconsistent.
• cry : laugh - Although cry and laugh are both vocal expressions, they do not represent lesser or greater degrees of the same essential action. They can vary independently in intensity. The relationship is indirect.
• bend : angle - Although bending something may create an angle, bend does not imply a clearly lesser intensity or degree than angle. The relationship is constitutive, not based on degrees of intensity.

So in summary, only curl : roll demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to drip : gush, where one concept (curl) implies a lesser intensity or degree of the same essential action described by the other concept (roll). The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or coincidental relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on differences of intensity, degree or extent. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!

maceration : liquid
erosion : weather
evaporation : humidity
sublimation : gas
trail : path
decision : distraction

Okay, for the pair:

maceration : liquid

The relationship is:

Maceration is the softening of something through soaking in a liquid. So there is a relationship of means or method to achieve a result. Liquid is the method by which maceration is achieved.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship of means or method to achieve a result is:

evaporation : humidity

Because evaporation is a process by which humidity or dampness is achieved. Like liquid enables maceration, evaporation leads to humidity.

The other choices do not show this kind of means-ends relationship:

• sublimation : gas - While sublimation results in a gas, the relationship is not strictly one of means to an end. Sublimation is itself the end result, not a means by which a gas is achieved. The relationship is inconsistent.
• trail : path - A trail is not a means by which a path is achieved. Trail and path essentially refer to the same concept, just at different levels of formality. The relationship is synonymous, not means-ends.
• erosion : weather - While erosion can be influenced or exacerbated by weather, weather itself is not a means by which erosion is achieved. Erosion can occur independently of weather. The relationship is coincidental or indirect, not strictly means-ends.
• decision : distraction - A decision is not a means by which distraction is achieved. Decision and distraction are largely unrelated concepts. The relationship is coincidental or indirect.

So in summary, only evaporation : humidity demonstrates a relationship directly comparable to maceration : liquid, where one term (evaporation) represents a means or method by which the end described by the other term (humidity) is achieved. The other choices show indirect, inconsistent or unrelated relationships between the concepts.

Let me know if this helps explain my approach to solving analogies based on means-ends relationships. I’m happy to work through any other examples you may have!