ISEE Middle Level Reading Comprehension › Making Inferences and Predictions in Science Passages
Adapted from Anecdotes of the Habits and Instincts of Animals by Mrs. R. Lee (1852)
The Carnivora are divided by naturalists into three groups, the characters of which are taken from their feet and manner of walking. Bears rank among the Plantigrada, or those which put the whole of their feet firmly upon the ground when they walk. They are occasionally cunning and ferocious, but often evince good humor and a great love of fun. In their wild state, they are solitary the greater part of their lives. They climb trees with great facility; live in caverns, holes, and hollow trees; and in cold countries, retire to some sequestered spot during the winter, where they remain concealed and bring forth their young. Some say they are torpid, but this cannot be, for the female bears come from their retreats with cubs that have lived upon them, and it is not likely that they can have reared them and remained without food; they are, however, often very lean and wasted, and the absorption of their generally large portion of fat contributes to their nourishment. The story that they live by sucking their paws is, as may be supposed, a fable; when well-fed they always lick their paws, very often accompanying the action with a peculiar sort of mumbling noise. There are a few which will never eat flesh, and all are able to do without it. They are, generally speaking, large, clumsy, and awkward, possessing large claws for digging, and often walk on their hind feet, a facility afforded them by the peculiar formation of their thigh bone. They do not often attack in the first instance, unless impelled by hunger or danger; they are, however, formidable opponents when excited. In former times, there were few parts of the globe in which they were not to be found, but, like other wild animals, they have disappeared before the advance of man. Still they are found in certain spots from the northern regions of the world to the burning climes of Africa, Asia, and America. The latest date of their appearance in Great Britain was in Scotland during the year 1057.
The author of this passage would most likely believe that someone who had been attacked by a bear was __________.
Foolish or unlucky depending on the circumstances surrounding the attack
It is impossible to say.
Responsible for the well-being of the bear
Very unlucky to have caught a bear at the wrong moment
Extremely foolish to have gotten himself in that position
Answering this question requires you to read the passage carefully and select the relevant piece of information from which to make a prediction. Toward the end of the passage, the author says, “\[Bears\] do not often attack in the first instance, unless impelled by hunger or danger; they are, however, formidable opponents when excited.” So, in the author's opinion, bears only attack when forced by “hunger or danger"; from this, we can reasonably predict that the author of this passage would believe someone attacked by a bear would have been either foolish or unlucky—foolish if he or she made the bear feel in danger, unlucky if he or she encountered the bear when it was hungry.
Adapted from Anecdotes of the Habits and Instincts of Animals by Mrs. R. Lee (1852)
Otters will certainly consume an immense quantity of fish, and the owners of salmon or trout streams have great spite against them. It is, however, very possible to tame them so as to make them bring the fish that they catch. This practice is much more followed in other countries than in England; they are purposely kept for it in Sweden, and at a signal from the cook will go and fetch the fish for dinner. Bishop Heber mentions that he saw several large and very beautiful otters fastened to bamboo stakes by the side of the Matta Colly river, some of which appeared to be at play, and uttered a shrill whistling noise. They wore straw collars and were very tame and docile. They should be caught quite young, and fed on small fish; then they are allowed bread and milk at alternate meals, till at last they entirely live upon this food. They are taught to fetch and carry with artificial fishes made of leather, and stuffed with wool. Then they are made to bring dead fishes, and if they attempt to tear them, they are severely punished. Thus trained, in process of time, the otter becomes useful and domesticated.
In their natural condition, otters will wander to considerable distances for their prey; Mr. St. John says, "I was rather amused at an old woman living on the Findhorn, who, complaining of the hardness of the present times, when 'a puir body couldn't get a drop smuggled whisky, or shoot a roe without his lordship's sportsman finding it out,' added to her list of grievances that even the otters were nearly all gone—'puir beasties.' 'Well, but what good could the otters do you?' I asked her. 'Good, your honor? Why scarcely a morning came but they left a bonny grilse (young salmon) on the scarp down yonder, and the venison was none the worse of the bit the puir beasts ate themselves.’ The people here (Morayshire) call every edible animal—fish, flesh, or fowl—“venison,” or as they pronounce it, “venisaan.” For instance, they tell you that the snipes are good venison, or that the trout are not good venison in the winter. The people of the Findhorn have learned well how to utilize the natural tenacity of the otter, but they have yet to attempt to domesticate them.
Which of these statements can most reasonably be inferred about the author based on the passage?
She is English.
She is an environmentalist.
She is dedicated to animal rights.
She is a farmer.
She has attended a college or university.
It is fairly obvious that the author is not an environmentalist or dedicated to animal rights from her statement near the end of the first paragraph, “Then they are made to bring dead fishes, and if they attempt to tear them, they are severely punished. Thus trained, in process of time, the otter becomes useful and domesticated.” Her statement about how otters are “severely punished” is delivered matter-of-factly and without any indication that it concerns the author. There is no evidence to support an inference that the author has attended a college or university other than perhaps that she is writing an academic essay. Also, although she is concerned with farmers and farming life, there is no indication that she is a farmer herself. The only answer choice that could be reasonably inferred is that the author is English. She says, “This practice is much more followed in other countries than in England; \[otters\] are purposely kept for it in Sweden." This information suggests that the author is living and writing in England for an English audience.
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
Which of the following inferences does the passage expect its readers to make?
If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.
If a hummingbird eats gnats, it will not eat honey.
Scientists rarely learn about hummingbirds by dissecting them.
Fly-catchers are a type of insect.
The author is the first scientist to ever have investigated what hummingbirds eat.
Let’s consider each of the answer choices to identify the correct one.
“The author is the first scientist to ever have investigated what hummingbirds eat.” - This cannot be true, because the author begins the passage by saying “The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects.” He also cites numerous other scientists’ opinions throughout the passage, so he can’t be the first person to have investigated what hummingbirds eat.
“Fly-catchers are a type of insect.” - The passage mentions fly-catchers in the following sentence: “Many \[hummingbirds\] in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig.” This is a tricky answer choice in that it’s easy to misread the sentence and think that “just like flycatchers” refers to “other small insects” when in fact it refers to the act of “catching.” The sentence is saying that hummingbirds catch insects in the same manner as fly-catchers, not that fly-catchers are a type of insect. Plus, we are being asked to identify an inference readers are expected to make, and if this sentence did mean that fly-catchers were insects, it would be overtly telling us this, and there would be nothing we’d have to infer.
“Scientists rarely learn about hummingbirds by dissecting them.” - This answer choice is proven wrong by the following sentence: “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.”
“If a hummingbird eats gnats, it will not eat honey.” - Given that the questions of whether hummingbirds eat insects or honey and in what proportions is the topic of the passage, it may be easy to choose this answer choice because it seems like the one closest to the passage’s main idea; however, nothing in the passage supports this assertion.
“If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.” - This is the correct answer! The author initially states that “All the early writers down to Buffon believed that \[hummingbirds\] lived solely on the nectar of flowers”; however, he later states that “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.” The author does not address the idea that flower nectar and honey could be different substances, and instead expects the reader to treat these as one source of food.
Adapted from "Birds’ Nests" by John Burroughs in A Book of Natural History (1902, ed. David Starr Jordan)
The woodpeckers all build in about the same manner, excavating the trunk or branch of a decayed tree, and depositing the eggs on the fine fragments of wood at the bottom of the cavity. Though the nest is not especially an artistic work, requiring strength rather than skill, yet the eggs and the young of few other birds are so completely housed from the elements, or protected from their natural enemies—the jays, crows, hawks, and owls. A tree with a natural cavity is never selected, but one which has been dead just long enough to have become soft and brittle throughout. The bird goes in horizontally for a few inches, making a hole perfectly round and smooth and adapted to his size, then turns downward, gradually enlarging the hole, as he proceeds, to the depth of ten, fifteen, twenty inches, according to the softness of the tree and the urgency of the mother bird to deposit her eggs. While excavating, male and female work alternately. After one has been engaged fifteen or twenty minutes, drilling and carrying out chips, it ascends to an upper limb, utters a loud call or two, when its mate soon appears, and, alighting near it on the branch, the pair chatter and caress a moment; then the fresh one enters the cavity and the other flies away.
What can you infer about male and female woodpeckers from this passage?
They have a close and intimate bond.
They do not always work together very well.
They mate for life.
They work quickly and hastily.
They are incapable of showing emotion.
In the concluding lines of this passage, the author talks about how “while excavating, male and female work alternately.” He also says, “the pair chatter and caress a moment; then the fresh one enters the cavity and the other flies away.” The key word for answering this question is “caress.” It means touch and stroke with affection. From the sum of this information, you can reasonably infer that woodpeckers “have a close and intimate bond.”
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
What can we infer from the underlined sentence, “Many \[hummingbirds\] in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig"?
Some hummingbirds live near bodies of water.
All hummingbirds live near bodies of water.
Some hummingbirds live in the desert.
All hummingbirds live in the desert.
Gnats are rarely found near bodies of water.
What does the underlined sentence tell us? It refers to “Many” hummingbirds, not “all hummingbirds,” so we can’t infer that what it says holds true for all hummingbirds. This allows us to eliminate the answer choices that begin with “all hummingbirds,” leaving us with “Gnats are rarely found near bodies of water,” “Some hummingbirds live in the desert,” and “Some hummingbirds live near a body of water.” Regarding gnats, the sentence doesn’t suggest that they are rarely found near bodies of water, since it mentions hummingbirds “may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers” and implies that they do this by “sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig.” We’re down to two answer choices: whether some hummingbirds live in the desert or near a body of water. The sentence doesn’t mention anything about deserts; on the contrary, it tells us that “many” hummingbirds catch gnats. The way that these hummingbirds do this begins with them “sitting on a dead twig over water.” So, we are told that many hummingbirds catch gnats and that in catching gnats, they sit over water. From this, we can infer that many hummingbirds live near bodies of water.
Adapted from “The Stars” by Sir Robert S. Ball in Wonders of Earth, Sea, and Sky (1902, ed. Edward Singleton Holden)
The group of bodies that cluster around our sun forms a little island in the extent of infinite space. We may illustrate this by drawing a map in which we shall endeavor to show the stars placed at their proper relative distances.
We first open the compasses one inch, and thus draw a little circle to represent the path of Earth. We are not going to put in all the planets; we take Neptune, the outermost, at once. To draw its path, I open the compasses to thirty inches, and draw a circle with that radius. That will do for our solar system, though the comets no doubt will roam beyond these limits.
To complete our map, we ought to put in some stars. There are a hundred million to choose from, and we shall begin with the brightest. It is often called the Dog Star, but astronomers know it better as Sirius. Let us see where it is to be placed on our map. Sirius is a good deal further off than Neptune; so I try at the edge of the drawing-board; I have got a method of making a little calculation that I do not intend to trouble you with, but I can assure you that the results it leads me to are quite correct; they show me that this board is not big enough. But could a board which was big enough fit into this lecture theatre? No; in fact, the board would have to go out through the wall of the theatre, out through London. Indeed, big as London is, it would not be large enough to contain the drawing-board that I should require. It would have to stretch about twenty miles from where we are now assembled. We may therefore dismiss any hope of making a practical map of our system on this scale if Sirius is to have its proper place.
Let us, then, take some other star. We shall naturally try with the nearest of all. It is one that we do not know in this part of the world, but those that live in the southern hemisphere are well acquainted with it. The name of this star is Alpha Centauri. Even for this star, we should require a drawing three or four miles long if the distance from the earth to the sun is to be taken as one inch.
You see what an isolated position our sun and its planets occupy. The stars might be very troublesome neighbors if they were very much closer to our system; it is therefore well they are so far off. If they were near at hand, they would drag us into unpleasantly great heat by bringing us too close to the sun, or produce a coolness by pulling us away from the sun, which would be quite as disagreeable.
Which of these statements about the author can you most reasonably infer to be true?
He works in London.
He is an amateur astronomer.
He is unmarried and childless.
He dropped out of university.
He worked for the American space program.
There is no evidence in this passage to support that the author is “unmarried” or that “he dropped out of university.” Likewise, there is no mention of the “American space program” or of the author’s professional or amateur status as an astronomer. It is reasonable to assume he is a professional from the assuredness of his tone. The only piece of information that could possibly lead to an inference being made is found in the third paragraph where the author is talking about constructing a scale model of the known universe. He says, “in fact, the board would have to go out through the wall of the theatre, out through London. Indeed, big as London is, it would not be large enough to contain the drawing-board that I should require. It would have to stretch about twenty miles from where we are now assembled.” The author is clearly in London and giving a lecture to a group of assembled individuals, so we can reasonably infer that the author “works in London.” Of course, this is not a concrete inference; he might simply be in town for a conference. But, there is such little evidence to support any other inference, so this is the answer choice that can be “most reasonably” inferred.
Adapted from “Introduced Species That Have Become Pests” in Our Vanishing Wild Life, Its Extermination and Protection by William Temple Hornaday (1913)
The man who successfully transplants or "introduces" into a new habitat any persistent species of living thing assumes a very grave responsibility. Every introduced species is doubtful gravel until panned out. The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild vertebrates and insects would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality. The most aggravating feature of these follies in transplantation is that never yet have they been made severely punishable. We are just as careless and easygoing on this point as we were about the government of the Yellowstone Park in the days when Howell and other poachers destroyed our first national bison herd, and when caught red-handed—as Howell was, skinning seven Park bison cows—could not be punished for it, because there was no penalty prescribed by any law. Today, there is a way in which any revengeful person could inflict enormous damage on the entire South, at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money, yet go absolutely unpunished!
The gypsy moth is a case in point. This winged calamity was imported at Maiden, Massachusetts, near Boston, by a French entomologist, Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, in 1868 or 69. History records the fact that the man of science did not purposely set free the pest. He was endeavoring with live specimens to find a moth that would produce a cocoon of commercial value to America, and a sudden gust of wind blew out of his study, through an open window, his living and breeding specimens of the gypsy moth. The moth itself is not bad to look at, but its larvae is a great, overgrown brute with an appetite like a hog. Immediately Mr. Trouvelot sought to recover his specimens, and when he failed to find them all, like a man of real honor, he notified the State authorities of the accident. Every effort was made to recover all the specimens, but enough escaped to produce progeny that soon became a scourge to the trees of Massachusetts. The method of the big, nasty-looking mottled-brown caterpillar was very simple. It devoured the entire foliage of every tree that grew in its sphere of influence.
The gypsy moth spread with alarming rapidity and persistence. In course of time, the state authorities of Massachusetts were forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire. It was awful! Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!
The spread of this pest has been retarded, but the gypsy moth never will be wholly stamped out. Today it exists in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and it is due to reach New York at an early date. It is steadily spreading in three directions from Boston, its original point of departure, and when it strikes the State of New York, we, too, will begin to pay dearly for the Trouvelot experiment.
Based on the first paragraph, the author would be most likely to support __________.
a law severely punishing those who introduce invasive species that damage the environment
keeping bison out of Yellowstone National Park
introducing damaging invasive species to the South
granting Howell clemency for his actions
an effort to catalogue the exact amount of money invasive species have cost the United States
One of the author’s main points in the first paragraph is that harsher legal repercussions are needed for those who release damaging invasive species into the United States. This is clear when the author writes, “The most aggravating feature of these follies in transplantation is that never yet have they been made severely punishable.” Thus, we can infer that the author would be most likely to support “a law severely punishing those who introduce invasive species that damage the environment.” Though the author does discuss the potential for someone to introduce invasive species to the South, he is not in favor of this, and he clearly doesn’t want to grant Howell clemency for his actions. (Furthermore, “clemency” somewhat implies that Howell has been charged with a crime, and the author explains that this isn’t the case.)
The author does state, “The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild vertebrates and insects would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality,” and we can therefore assume that he might support cataloguing the amount of money invasive species have cost the United States. However, this inference requires a much larger logical leap than does the one that the author would support harsher legal punishments for those who introduce damaging invasive species, making “a law severely punishing those who introduce invasive species that damage the environment” the best answer. If you’re unsure when picking between answers to an inference question, it’s usually a good idea to see which one is more relevant to the passage’s topic and has the most evidence supporting it.
dapted from “Introduced Species That Have Become Pests” in Our Vanishing Wild Life, Its Extermination and Protection by William Temple Hornaday (1913)
The man who successfully transplants or "introduces" into a new habitat any persistent species of living thing assumes a very grave responsibility. Every introduced species is doubtful gravel until panned out. The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild vertebrates and insects would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality. The most aggravating feature of these follies in transplantation is that never yet have they been made severely punishable. We are just as careless and easygoing on this point as we were about the government of the Yellowstone Park in the days when Howell and other poachers destroyed our first national bison herd, and when caught red-handed—as Howell was, skinning seven Park bison cows—could not be punished for it, because there was no penalty prescribed by any law. Today, there is a way in which any revengeful person could inflict enormous damage on the entire South, at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money, yet go absolutely unpunished!
The gypsy moth is a case in point. This winged calamity was imported at Maiden, Massachusetts, near Boston, by a French entomologist, Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, in 1868 or 69. History records the fact that the man of science did not purposely set free the pest. He was endeavoring with live specimens to find a moth that would produce a cocoon of commercial value to America, and a sudden gust of wind blew out of his study, through an open window, his living and breeding specimens of the gypsy moth. The moth itself is not bad to look at, but its larvae is a great, overgrown brute with an appetite like a hog. Immediately Mr. Trouvelot sought to recover his specimens, and when he failed to find them all, like a man of real honor, he notified the State authorities of the accident. Every effort was made to recover all the specimens, but enough escaped to produce progeny that soon became a scourge to the trees of Massachusetts. The method of the big, nasty-looking mottled-brown caterpillar was very simple. It devoured the entire foliage of every tree that grew in its sphere of influence.
The gypsy moth spread with alarming rapidity and persistence. In course of time, the state authorities of Massachusetts were forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire. It was awful! Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!
The spread of this pest has been retarded, but the gypsy moth never will be wholly stamped out. Today it exists in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and it is due to reach New York at an early date. It is steadily spreading in three directions from Boston, its original point of departure, and when it strikes the State of New York, we, too, will begin to pay dearly for the Trouvelot experiment.
If the author were to learn that the gypsy moth could be efficiently repelled from trees by coating them with a cheap, natural substance, he would likely feel __________.
exuberant
horrified
unsurprised
anxious
pessimistic
Throughout the passage, the author makes it apparent that he feels that the gypsy moth is a very damaging invasive species that causes a lot of problems in the United States. He calls it a “winged calamity” and, in the third paragraph, describes how it spread:
“The gypsy moth spread with alarming rapidity and persistence. In course of time, the state authorities of Massachusetts were forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire. It was awful! Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!”
From this paragraph, we can tell that if the author were to learn that the gypsy moth could be efficiently stopped from damaging trees, he would be most likely to feel “exuberant,” or excited and happy. Nothing in the passage supports any of the other answers.
Adapted from "Wasps" by Thomas G. Belt in A Book of Natural History (1902, ed. David Starr Jordan)
One day I saw a small black and yellow banded wasp hunting for spiders; it approached a web where a spider was stationed in the center, made a dart towards it—apparently a feint to frighten the spider clear of its web; at any rate it had that effect, for it fell to the ground, and was immediately seized by the wasp, who stung it, then ran quickly backwards, dragging the spider after it, up a branch reaching to the ground until it got high enough, when it flew heavily off with it. It was so small, and the spider so cumbersome, that it probably could not have raised it from the ground by flight.
All over the world there are wasps that store their nests with the bodies of spiders for their young to feed on. In Australia, I often witnessed a wasp engaging with a large flat spider that is found on the bark of trees. It would fall to the ground, and lie on its back, so as to be able to grapple with its opponent; but the wasp was always the victor in the encounters I saw, although it was not always allowed to carry off its prey in peace. One day, sitting on the sandbanks on the coast of Hobson’s Bay, I saw one dragging along a large spider. Three or four inches above it hovered two minute flies, keeping a little behind, and advancing with it. The wasp seemed much disturbed by the presence of the tiny flies, and twice left its prey to fly up towards them, but they darted away with it. As soon as the wasp returned to the spider, there they were hovering over and following it again. At last, unable to drive away its small provocateurs, the wasp reached its burrow and took down the spider, and the two flies stationed themselves one on each side of the entrance, and would, doubtless, when the wasp went away to seek another victim, descend and lay their own eggs in the nest.
Which of these inferences about the author can be most easily assumed?
He has observed the behavior of wasps around the world.
He has recently graduated from university after studying entomology, the study of insects.
He lives in Australia.
He is more interested by the behavior of spiders than that of wasps.
He is not used to writing about his research.
There is no evidence to support any of these inferences except the one that suggests that the author has “observed the behavior of wasps around the world.” The author says “All over the world there are wasps that store their nests with the bodies of spiders for their young to feed on.” Seeing as he cites no one else's research, it is reasonable to infer that he has conducted this research himself. Although he only mentions his time in Australia, it is unreasonable to conclude that this necessarily means he lives in Australia—he might have only been visiting to conduct research.
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
Based on what is said in the passage, the author most likely believes that __________.
hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly insects
hummingbirds eat only flower nectar
hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly flower nectar
hummingbirds eat neither flower nectar nor insects
None of the other answers
This is a tricky question because in the passage, the author never directly states his opinion about what hummingbirds eat; readers have to infer it based on the evidence he presents. The author begins the passage by stating that while old scientists used to think hummingbirds ate only flower nectar, modern writers think that they eat “largely, and in some cases wholly,” on insects. He then presents evidence suggesting that hummingbirds eat insects, and in discussing the contents of hummingbirds’ stomachs, says that scientists sometimes find both insects and honey. For the rest of the paragraph, he provides evidence suggesting that hummingbirds eat insects.
What can we infer from this? Well, we can tell that it’s not likely that the author thinks hummingbirds eat only flower nectar, because he provides evidence supporting the idea that they eat insects. This means that we can also discard the answer choice “hummingbirds eat neither flower nectar nor insects.” It’s quite reasonable to think that the author thinks that “hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects” because he mentions that sometimes honey is found along with insects in hummingbirds’ stomachs. So, we need to figure out whether he probably believes that they eat mostly insects or mostly flower nectar. Let’s look at how the author phrases his description of the contents of hummingbirds’ stomachs: “in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.” So, if “in almost every instance” the hummingbird stomachs examined were “full of insects,” but “sometimes, but not generally” honey was also found, the correct answer must be “hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly insects.”