"..guessing would give 50%, and that the probability to get 80% by pure chance is 4.4%. .. All one can say is that your guessing was not completely random. Your score hardly justifies the attitude you afford."
But I was there. If I had guessed, I would surely remember doing so. And I did guess, and I do remember doing so, but only on questions 9 and 10 when I had the mistaken notion that one of them must be by Franken despite them being equally unfunny. I even remember saying as much.
"That phrase is correct. You can find similar examples in literature.
Plato, who places so high an emphasis on provable truth, depends, in his theory of forms, on sheer assertion."
That "in" arises because Plato's sheer assertion is physically located in his theory of forms, i.e. it is a part of that book. Can Bin Laden be physically located in his metabolism, or can George Bush be located in his thinking? The clear and obviously straightforward formulation would have been "Similar to Osama bin Laden, who depends on a dialysis machine for his metabolism, George W. Bush depends on Karl Rove for his thinking". That uses the same pattern in both halves of the sentence, facilitating comparison, and furthermore it is the standard and easily comprehended pattern X depends on Y for Z. If you were absolutely set on having an "in", you could have added "in Afghanistan" or "in Pakistan" after "dialysis machine".
"I read two books by Franken, looking for something, which may pass as a joke, and did not find enough. Had to look into the third. What you see in the test is the best from his 2.5 books."
I'm glad of that. It means I don't need to feel so bad about adversely comparing your attempts at humor to Franken's. Franken, when he wrote his books, was a professional humorist and had been for years. Furthermore, he was one of the most successful and well-known humorists in the world. He probably put an awful lot of time and effort into those books and then, you say, you cherry-picked them looking for things "which may pass as a joke". And you think you can grab an envelope and spend a few minutes scribbling on the back of it, or whatever it is that you did, and produce something which is indistinguishable from that distillation of years of effort by a professional? That is what is known as hubris. It would be hubris even if you had an understanding of humor.
"Don't see how your ABCD is related to the phrase you refer to."
A is "Osama bin Laden", B is "a dialysis machine", C is "George W. Bush", D is "Karl Rove". So, as I said, A depends on B ("Osama bin Laden" depends on "a dialysis machine"), and C depends on D ("George W. Bush" depends on "Karl Rove"), so A+B is similar to C+D. Is that clear now? More importantly, is it hilarious? Are you rolling around on the floor and laughing uncontrollably, now that your own "joke" has been explained to you in such meticulous detail?
"Funny or unfunny strongly depends on the beholder, but #9 was a clear give away. You need to know windsurfing to make that observation. Franken doesn't. Such people don't."
I'm not an expert on Franken. I don't know if he knows anything about windsurfing or not. I was looking for humor. What we have in #9 is a piece of pedantic nitpicking, which might be found funny but only by a pedantic nitpicker.
If you want further explanation of why your efforts fall down:
#4 is not only unfunny, it is borderline racist. Even if Franken did come up with such a quip, it would certainly be slapped down by his editor or publisher.
#6 is a non-sequitur train wreck. "the argument that one can't pass judgements on military men, if one didn't himself serve in the military" seems to be about the rights of ordinary people to judge those whose experiences they do not share. Ditto with part 2, about movie viewers and actors. But with part 3, "what if one was five times drafted by Hollywood and got five deferrals?" - what ordinary member of the public was ever five times drafted by Hollywood or got five deferrals?
and #10 we have more pedantic nitpicking; since there is more than one way that something can be "the opposite" of something else, both points of view about the antichrist can be said to have some validity, and to favor one interpretation while ridiculing someone who chooses the other one, without giving any actual reason for that stance, is just nonsense.
If you want further explanation of why Franken's efforts don't fall down:
#2 is funny because not only is it true but it is actually somewhat understated; there's no evidence, as far as I know, that Hussein ever met bin Laden at all; and it is ironic, given what happened in 2003 and the justifications that were made then.
#3 is again steeped in irony, first with the contrast between "healthy" and "gone" (the latter word being substituted where a lesser scribe might have written "worse", and where a reader would surely expect to come across something like that; it's the contrast between expectation and actuality that makes it funny) and then with the wordplay on "clear skies", playing with two different meanings of that phrase.
#4 - I'm not American, and I know Gore even less than I know Franken, so the references to "Love Canal" and "Love Story" were lost on me. They still are. Maybe I'll look them up later. But I should have "got" this one from the reference to the internet alone. Gore never actually claimed to have invented the Internet, and he did play a large part in the funding and building up of it, which is all that he actually did claim. Hence his (so-called) "lies" were true, unlike those of Bush.
#7 is a real gem. The image it paints of a put-upon Colmes, not only being dumped upon on-screen but also having to do all the chores afterwards, makes it hard for the reader not to feel sorry for him.
#8's humor comes mainly from the way Franken talks down to Sean, as if addressing a child: "Well, Sean, fuel-burning SUVs burn fuel". There's also the twist at the end, where flag-burning is seen as producing a stream of revenue for the flag producers, who are our allies. Not an argument which would occur to most, and it is this unexpectedness which makes it funny.
In short, your efforts have the "form" of jokes but not the actual content. Franken's efforts really are jokes, even if the humor is lost on some. It's like putting up five extracts from genuine scientific papers against five produced by context-free grammar generators, except most people have the aptitude needed to recognise a genuine joke even if they lack the scientific background needed to recognise a genuine scientific paper.
"I did not imitate Ann. Long before reading her books I already had those thoughts."
Regardless of how it happened, your style was very similar to Anne's. I would put it down to you both having a weak grasp of what humor actually is, or is supposed to be. You say "tens of millions of people find her jokes very funny", but she has never written a joke that I know of. She writes insults, which are not the same thing.