All questions
Question 1
Read the two sources about the eruption of Mount St. Helens.
Text A (Science website): Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980. The website reports that 57 people died and that the eruption triggered a massive landslide and ash cloud. It emphasizes that scientists’ monitoring and hazard zones saved lives because many people stayed away from the most dangerous areas.
Text B (Memoir excerpt): A local resident’s memoir says the eruption happened on May 8, 1980, and claims “over 100” people died because warnings were confusing and officials reacted too slowly. The writer argues that the event shows how authorities often underestimate natural disasters.
Which choice best identifies the conflict between the texts?
- They disagree on the eruption’s date and death toll (factual), and they also differ on how effective officials and scientists were (interpretive). (correct answer)
- They disagree only on the factual details of the date and death toll, while sharing the same view of how well officials and scientists responded.
- They agree on the date and death toll (factual), but disagree only on whether the eruption produced an ash cloud and landslide.
- They disagree only on the interpretive question of official responsibility, while reporting the same date and same number of deaths.
Explanation: The best answer names both kinds of conflict. The texts disagree on facts (Text A says May 18 and 57 deaths; Text B says May 8 and "over 100"), and they disagree on interpretation (Text A credits monitoring and hazard zones with saving lives, while Text B blames slow, confusing official responses). Only the correct choice captures both.
The choice claiming the texts share the same view of the response is wrong: they clearly interpret official and scientific effectiveness in opposite ways, so the disagreement is not only factual. The choice saying they agree on the date and death toll is wrong too, because Text A and Text B give different dates and different numbers of deaths. The choice saying they report the same date and death count also fails, since those numbers plainly conflict; it captures only the interpretive disagreement and denies the factual one. Because each of these misses or misreads part of the conflict, only the choice naming both a factual and an interpretive disagreement fits.
Question 2
Text A (textbook summary): The Great Chicago Fire began on the evening of October 8, 1871, and burned into October 10. It destroyed about 3.3 square miles of the city. Roughly 100,000 people were left homeless. Many rumors blamed Mrs. O'Leary's cow for kicking over a lantern, but investigators never proved that story. Historians now stress that dry weather, wooden buildings, and crowded blocks let the fire spread quickly. After the disaster, Chicago created stricter building codes. The rebuilding helped the city become a major center of business.
Text B (local-history blog post): Chicago's famous fire started early on October 9, 1871, after a lantern was knocked over in the O'Leary barn. The cow story is widely accepted because it explains how the blaze began. The fire's biggest effect was psychological. It made Chicagoans fearful and cautious for decades. Growth slowed because investors avoided the city. Weather and building materials mattered. But the main reason the fire became a disaster was poor leadership from city officials, who failed to organize firefighters and evacuations.
Which disagreement is primarily factual rather than interpretive?
- Whether the fire began on October 8 or instead on October 9. (correct answer)
- Whether poor leadership was the main reason the fire spread so far.
- Whether the fire's biggest effect was economic growth or lasting fear.
- Whether the cow story is the correct explanation for the fire's start.
Explanation: A factual disagreement is about something that can be checked against the record, and a start date fits perfectly: the fire began on one specific day, so October 8 and October 9 cannot both be true. That makes the disagreement over the starting date the correct answer. The disagreement about whether poor leadership was the main reason the fire spread is interpretive, because deciding the 'main' cause among weather, buildings, and officials is a judgment about which factor mattered most. The disagreement about whether the biggest effect was economic growth or lasting fear is also interpretive, since 'biggest effect' asks a reader to weigh and rank consequences rather than verify a single fact. The disagreement about whether the cow story is the correct explanation may sound factual, but both texts admit the cause was never proven, so this is really a dispute over which account to believe rather than a checkable fact.
Question 3
Read the two texts about the 1995 Chicago heat wave.
Text A (public health report): During the July 1995 heat wave in Chicago, extreme temperatures contributed to about 700 deaths in a single week. The report argues the highest risk was among elderly residents living alone in neighborhoods with fewer resources. It says the disaster showed the need for better city services, cooling centers, and neighbor check-ins.
Text B (newspaper retrospective): The 1995 Chicago heat wave caused around 500 deaths. The article claims the main reason for the high death toll was that many people were afraid to open windows or leave home because of crime, even if they were not elderly. It concludes the key lesson is that public safety and trust in the community can be as important as medical responses.
Which statement best identifies what the texts agree on despite their disagreement?
- Both texts agree the heat wave happened in July 1995 and that it caused many deaths in Chicago. (correct answer)
- Both texts agree on the exact number of people who died and on which neighborhoods suffered the most losses.
- Both texts agree that fear of crime was the single reason so many people died during the week.
- Both texts agree the city had already provided enough cooling centers and services before the heat wave hit.
Explanation: The correct answer names what both texts truly share: they both place the event in July 1995 and both report that the heat wave caused many deaths in Chicago, even though they disagree about the exact toll and the main cause. That is the common ground the question asks you to find.
The choice about the exact number and specific neighborhoods is wrong because the texts actually differ on the numbers—about 700 versus around 500—and neither text claims agreement about which neighborhoods lost the most people.
The choice about fear of crime being the single reason is wrong because only Text B stresses crime; Text A points to elderly residents living alone in under-resourced areas, so the texts disagree on cause rather than agree that crime was the sole factor.
The choice about the city already having enough cooling centers is wrong because Text A explicitly argues that more city services, cooling centers, and check-ins were needed, so the texts do not share that view. Look for the claim both authors would accept, not one that matches only a single text.
Question 4
Text A (civil rights timeline):
The Montgomery Bus Boycott began in December 1955, after Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat. The boycott lasted 381 days. It ended in December 1956. That is when the Supreme Court ruling in Browder v. Gayle required Montgomery to desegregate its buses. Many accounts stress the role of local organizers. The Montgomery Improvement Association coordinated carpools and mass meetings. The boycott showed the power of nonviolent protest, and it helped make Martin Luther King Jr. a national figure.
Text B (opinion column):
People often say the boycott lasted about a year. In truth it ran for roughly 11 months. It ended when bus company profits dropped and city leaders began to negotiate quietly. Court decisions mattered, but the boycott's success came mainly from economic pressure, not legal rulings. Focusing too much on Martin Luther King Jr. can hide how ordinary workers carried the movement. Many were Black women who walked long distances each day. The boycott inspired activists, but it did not immediately end segregation across the South.
How do the texts differ in their presentation of the boycott's main reason for success?
- Text A credits legal action and organized protest, while Text B credits economic pressure over court rulings. (correct answer)
- Text A credits the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., while Text B credits the court ruling in Browder v. Gayle.
- Text A credits the arrest of Rosa Parks, while Text B credits the long daily walks made by ordinary workers.
- Text A credits quiet negotiations with city leaders, while Text B credits the power of nonviolent protest.
Explanation: The question asks what each text names as the main reason the boycott succeeded. Text A points to the Supreme Court ruling and the organized, nonviolent protest run by local groups, while Text B argues the real driver was economic pressure and plays down the legal rulings. The choice naming legal action and organized protest for Text A and economic pressure for Text B captures that exact difference. The option pairing King's leadership with the court ruling flips things: Text A mentions King's fame as a result, not the cause, and Text B actually downplays the ruling. The option about Rosa Parks's arrest names only the boycott's trigger, not its reason for success, and misassigns the workers' walks, which Text B uses to credit economic pressure, not to explain success by itself. The option about quiet negotiations belongs to Text B, and nonviolent protest is stressed by Text A, so it swaps each text's actual claim.
Question 5
Text A (museum placard): In December 1903, brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright tested a powered airplane at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The placard says the first flight happened on December 17, 1903. It lasted 12 seconds and traveled 120 feet. The placard explains that the key breakthrough was the Wrights' system for controlling the plane in the air, which allowed repeated flights that day.
Text B (magazine article): A history magazine reports that the Wright brothers' first powered flight happened on December 14, 1903, and traveled about 200 feet. The article argues that the Wrights' main achievement was their lightweight engine. It claims that control systems mattered less, because any pilot could learn to steer with practice.
Which option best describes how the texts disagree?
- They disagree about the location of the flight and the pilot who flew it, but they report the same date, distance, and main achievement.
- They disagree on facts, the date and distance, and on interpretation, what mattered most about the flight. (correct answer)
- They report the same date and distance for the flight, and they disagree only about whether the achievement was truly important.
- They report the same facts about the flight, but they disagree about the brothers' first names and each brother's role in the event.
Explanation: The correct choice notices two kinds of disagreement at once. The texts give different facts: the placard dates the flight December 17 and measures 120 feet, while the magazine says December 14 and about 200 feet. They also interpret the achievement differently, crediting the control system versus the lightweight engine. The choice claiming they share the same date, distance, and achievement is wrong because every one of those details actually differs between the texts. The choice saying they report the same date and distance is wrong for the same reason, and it also ignores the disagreement about facts, not just importance. The choice about first names and roles is wrong because both texts name Orville and Wilbur and neither disputes who did what; that is not where they conflict. Only one choice captures both the factual and the interpretive split, so it is the best answer.
Question 6
Text A (school article): Johannes Gutenberg developed a printing press in the mid-1400s. It used movable type and worked well. By 1500, European printers had produced over 20 million books. The article argues that the press quickly increased literacy. It also helped spread new ideas during the Renaissance and Reformation.
Text B (historian interview): In an interview, a historian gives a different view. Early printing was slower and more limited than people imagine. The historian estimates that by 1500 the number of printed books was closer to 8 million. The historian argues that literacy rose mainly for other reasons. Cities grew and schools expanded. So printing supported change but did not cause it alone.
Why is this disagreement between the texts important to evaluate?
- It shapes how we see the scale of early printing and whether printing drove social change or was just one factor among several. (correct answer)
- It proves that the printing press had almost no real effect and that literacy would have risen at the very same rate without it.
- It shows that the two texts fully agree on the facts and differ only in how formally each one describes early European printing.
- It matters mainly because it tells us which single text is completely correct so we can ignore the other one entirely from now on.
Explanation: The two texts clash in two ways: on a fact (over 20 million books by 1500 versus closer to 8 million) and on an interpretation (whether printing caused social change or merely supported it). Weighing that disagreement changes both how big we think early printing was and how much credit we give it, so the choice about scale and whether printing drove change or was one factor is best. The claim that printing had almost no effect goes too far—Text B still says printing supported change, so this overstates one side. The claim that the texts fully agree and differ only in formality is a misreading, because they plainly disagree about the numbers and the cause. The idea that one text must be completely correct and the other ignored is the wrong response to conflicting sources; evaluating a disagreement means comparing evidence, not throwing a source away.
Question 7
Read the two sources about the Great Chicago Fire.
Text A (History textbook): The Great Chicago Fire began on October 8, 1871, and burned for about two days. The textbook says around 300 people died and about 100,000 were left homeless. It explains that dry weather, wooden buildings, and strong winds helped the fire spread quickly.
Text B (Online blog post): A blog post claims the fire started on October 6, 1871, and that “thousands” died. It argues that the main reason the fire spread was government corruption: the post says city leaders ignored safety rules and failed to fund a professional fire department.
Which point of disagreement is primarily factual (something that could be checked with evidence)?
- Whether corruption or natural conditions was the most important reason the fire spread through the city.
- Whether the fire should be remembered as a tragic accident or as a failure of the leaders in charge.
- The exact date the fire began and the approximate number of people who died in it. (correct answer)
- Whether the fire counts as a significant and important event in the history of the city of Chicago.
Explanation: The correct choice points to the fire's start date and death toll. These are objective facts that historical records can verify: one source says October 8 and about 300 deaths, the other says October 6 and “thousands.” They can't both be right, and evidence can settle who is. That makes this disagreement factual.
The choice about whether corruption or natural conditions mattered most is a disagreement about causes—a judgment. People can weigh the same events differently, so it's interpretive, not something evidence alone decides.
The choice about remembering the fire as an accident or a leadership failure is also interpretive. It asks how we should judge and frame the event, which is a matter of opinion rather than a checkable fact.
The choice about whether the fire counts as a significant event asks for an assessment of importance. “Significant” is a value judgment, so this is interpretive too. Only the date and death toll are strictly factual.
Question 8
Passage 1: Ancient Egypt grew along the Nile River in northeastern Africa more than 5,000 years ago. Each year the Nile flooded and left behind rich, dark soil. Farmers used this fertile soil to grow wheat, barley, and vegetables. Because the food supply was steady, the civilization was able to grow.
Passage 2: The ancient Egyptians built pyramids as tombs for their powerful pharaohs. The Great Pyramid of Giza was built around 2560 BCE. Egyptians also made important advances in mathematics, medicine, and engineering. They developed hieroglyphics, a writing system that used pictures and symbols.
Based on both passages, what can you conclude about how the Nile River helped Egypt achieve great things?
- The Nile's floods gave Egypt its pyramids directly, since the river supplied the water that workers used to cut and move the heavy stone blocks into place.
- The Nile's yearly floods made rich soil and a steady food supply, which let Egyptians grow and develop advances like pyramids and writing. (correct answer)
- The Nile mattered mainly because its rising floodwaters gave Egyptian scholars a useful place to test out their new discoveries in mathematics and medicine.
- The Nile helped Egypt only by giving its people fresh water to drink, and it did not really support the farming or steady growth of the civilization.
Explanation: Passage 1 explains that the Nile's yearly floods created rich soil and a steady food supply, and Passage 2 shows that Egypt then built pyramids and developed math, medicine, and writing. Putting these together, the dependable food the river made possible is what allowed the civilization to grow and reach those achievements, so the choice linking the floods to food and then to growth is correct. The choice claiming the river's water directly cut and moved the stone blocks invents a mechanism that neither passage mentions. The choice about scholars testing discoveries in the floodwaters reverses the real relationship, since the advances came from a strong, well-fed civilization, not from the river being a testing ground. The choice saying the Nile only provided drinking water is too narrow, because Passage 1 stresses that the floods supported farming and the whole civilization's growth.
Question 9
Read the two sources about school start times for middle school students.
Text A (Pediatrician’s column): A pediatrician argues that starting school later improves learning because teens’ bodies naturally fall asleep later. The column cites a district that shifted start time from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and reports fewer tardies and better average grades. It concludes that sleep is the most important factor in academic success.
Text B (School board statement): A school board statement agrees sleep matters but says later start times create major transportation problems and reduce after-school activity time. It notes that the same district saw bus costs rise and sports practices end later. The statement argues that family schedules and safety (kids waiting in the dark) should be weighed as heavily as sleep.
How do the texts differ in their presentation of the issue?
- Text A focuses on benefits to sleep and academics, while Text B emphasizes trade-offs like cost, scheduling, and safety. (correct answer)
- Text A treats better grades as the main outcome, while Text B treats the district's rising bus costs as the main outcome to weigh.
- Text A presents the start-time change as a settled success, while Text B presents the same change as an ongoing dispute among families.
- Text A argues sleep is one factor among several, while Text B argues sleep should outweigh scheduling and safety concerns entirely.
Explanation: Both texts accept the same facts—one district moved its start time from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m.—but they highlight different consequences. The correct answer captures this difference in emphasis: the column stresses the upsides for sleep and academics, while the board statement stresses the trade-offs of cost, scheduling, and safety.
The choice about grades versus bus costs is wrong because the board statement never claims rising bus costs are the single main issue; it lists cost as one of several trade-offs weighed against sleep. The choice describing a settled success versus an ongoing family dispute misreads the board statement, which raises concerns and priorities but does not frame the issue as an unresolved fight among families. The choice claiming Text A treats sleep as just one factor reverses the column's actual position—it concludes sleep is 'the most important factor,' and it also flips the board statement, which asks that sleep be weighed alongside other concerns, not outweighed by them. Only the first choice accurately describes how each text presents the issue.
Question 10
Text A (biography excerpt): The biography says Rosalind Franklin's X-ray image gave crucial evidence for the double-helix structure of DNA. This image is often called Photo 51. It states that Franklin did not receive a Nobel Prize because she died in 1958. Nobel Prizes are not given after death. The author argues that Franklin's careful methods were essential, and that her work was undervalued at the time.
Text B (science magazine profile): The profile agrees that Franklin produced important X-ray data. But it claims Watson and Crick would likely have reached the double-helix model quickly even without her image. It also says Franklin could have shared in the Nobel if she had lived. This suggests her lack of recognition was mainly a matter of timing, not of being undervalued.
Which option best describes the disagreement?
- They disagree over whether Photo 51 mattered at all, with one text calling it crucial and the other calling it worthless data.
- They disagree over how necessary Franklin's work was and whether her lack of recognition was undervaluing or just timing. (correct answer)
- They disagree over why the Nobel Prize was denied, with one text blaming her death and the other blaming deliberate bias against her.
- They disagree over the science details of DNA while fully agreeing on how important Franklin's role in the discovery really was.
Explanation: Both texts accept the same facts: Photo 51 mattered, and Franklin died in 1958. So their clash is about interpretation. One text treats Franklin's careful work as essential and says she was undervalued; the other says Watson and Crick would have reached the model quickly anyway and that her missing recognition was really about timing. The choice naming that interpretive split is correct. The option about Photo 51 being 'worthless data' is wrong because both texts agree her X-ray data was important. The option claiming one text blames 'deliberate bias' for the Nobel is wrong because both agree the prize was tied to her death, not to intentional discrimination. The option saying they disagree on DNA science but agree on Franklin's importance flips the texts: they accept the same science facts and actually split over how important her role was.
Question 11
Text A (student encyclopedia): The Great Wall is not one single wall built at one time. The encyclopedia says major building happened during the Qin dynasty, around 221 to 206 BCE. More came later, during the Ming dynasty, from 1368 to 1644 CE. It explains that different rulers built or rebuilt sections mainly to defend against invasions and raids.
Text B (travel brochure): A travel brochure states that the Great Wall was "built in the 1400s." It suggests the wall was made mostly to control trade by forcing merchants through certain gates, and it calls the wall a symbol of China's unity more than a military structure.
Which option best identifies where and how the texts disagree?
- They disagree on when most building happened (many periods vs. the 1400s) and on the wall's purpose (defense vs. trade). (correct answer)
- They disagree on when the wall was finished (the Qin dynasty vs. the Ming dynasty) but agree the wall's only purpose was military defense.
- They agree the wall was built during a single dynasty but disagree on whether its purpose was defense against raids or a symbol of unity.
- They disagree on the wall's purpose (defense vs. trade) but agree that all major building happened during the 1400s.
Explanation: The best answer names both real disagreements: Text A spreads building across several periods (Qin and Ming) while Text B says the 1400s, and Text A says the purpose was defense while Text B says trade control and symbolism. One tempting option gets the purpose wrong, claiming both texts agree the wall was only for military defense—but Text B calls it more of a trade tool and a symbol. Another says both texts agree the wall was built during a single dynasty, yet Text A clearly describes building across the Qin and Ming periods. The last option correctly spots the purpose disagreement but then claims both texts place all building in the 1400s, which is only Text B's view—Text A dates major building to Qin times too. Only the correct answer captures both the 'when' and the 'why' disputes accurately.
Question 12
Read the two texts about the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.
Text A (science magazine, 2015): The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens began after a magnitude 5.1 earthquake triggered a massive landslide on the volcano’s north side. The sideways “blast” that followed flattened forests for miles. Scientists estimate about 1 cubic mile of material was removed from the mountain, leaving a large crater. The article argues the eruption changed how the U.S. monitors volcanoes, leading to better warning systems and new hazard maps.
Text B (local-history website, 2020): On May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted after a magnitude 5.0 earthquake. The eruption mainly shot ash straight upward, and the damage was worst because people ignored clear warnings. The site says about 2 cubic miles of rock and ash were blown away. It claims the event did not significantly change volcano monitoring because funding stayed low for years.
Which option best identifies one factual conflict and one interpretive conflict between the texts?
- Factual: the texts give different amounts of material removed from the mountain; Interpretive: they disagree about whether the eruption left a crater rather than only shooting ash upward.
- Factual: the texts give different earthquake magnitudes and different amounts of material removed; Interpretive: they disagree on how much the eruption changed volcano monitoring. (correct answer)
- Factual: the texts disagree about the direction the eruption sent its blast; Interpretive: they disagree about why the eruption caused so much damage to the surrounding area.
- Factual: the texts disagree about the earthquake magnitude that came first; Interpretive: they disagree about the precise number of cubic miles that were removed from the mountain.
Explanation: A factual conflict is a disagreement about something objective and verifiable, like a number or measurement. An interpretive conflict is a disagreement about meaning, cause, or significance. The best answer pairs a real factual conflict (Text A says magnitude 5.1 and about 1 cubic mile removed; Text B says magnitude 5.0 and about 2 cubic miles) with a real interpretive conflict (Text A argues the eruption changed volcano monitoring; Text B claims it did not). Both parts are correctly sorted.
The choice pairing different material amounts with a crater-versus-ash disagreement gets the factual part right but mislabels the crater difference as interpretive—it is actually a factual dispute about what the eruption did.
The choice about the blast direction and the damage flips the categories: blast direction (sideways versus straight up) is a factual dispute, while why the damage was worst is the interpretive one, so calling direction interpretive is backwards.
The choice about earthquake magnitude and cubic miles labels the magnitude difference as factual (correct) but then treats the differing cubic-mile numbers as interpretive, when a measurable quantity like cubic miles is a factual conflict, not an interpretive one.
Question 13
Text A (biographical profile): Harriet Tubman escaped slavery in 1849. Later she became one of the best-known conductors on the Underground Railroad. Many historians estimate that she guided about 70 enslaved people to freedom. She did this through roughly 13 rescue trips. The profile emphasizes Tubman's careful planning. It notes her use of secret networks. It also notes her willingness to return to dangerous areas. It argues that her leadership was extraordinary. She combined courage with strategy. That made her a symbol of resistance to slavery.
Text B (historian interview): Tubman's bravery is undeniable. But the exact numbers in her story are often exaggerated. Some scholars argue that she directly guided closer to 40 people. They also say that "13 trips" may combine different kinds of journeys. The interview stresses that the Underground Railroad was a broad community effort. It involved many free Black families and abolitionists. Focusing too much on Tubman can hide how escapes really happened. Tubman is still important, but more as one key organizer among many.
Which option best identifies a point where the texts disagree in a way that is both factual and interpretive?
- They report different totals for the people she guided, roughly 70 against nearer 40, and differ on whether her role stood alone or belonged to a group. (correct answer)
- They report different accounts of how she gained her freedom, one saying she escaped enslavement herself and the other saying she was born into a free family.
- They report different views of the network itself, one saying it moved people along secret human routes and the other saying it relied on actual passenger trains.
- They report different judgments of her personal character, one presenting her as genuinely brave and determined and the other doubting she had real courage at all.
Explanation: The correct choice captures two kinds of disagreement at once. On the factual side, the texts give different totals for the people Tubman guided—about 70 in the profile versus nearer 40 in the interview. On the interpretive side, they differ on how to understand her role: the profile treats her leadership as singular and extraordinary, while the interview describes her as one organizer within a broad community effort. Only this choice names both a fact and an interpretation that actually clash.
The choice about how she gained her freedom fails because both texts agree she escaped slavery herself; the profile states it plainly and the interview never disputes it. The choice about passenger trains fails because neither text claims real trains were used—the "railroad" is described as secret human networks. The choice about her character fails because both texts affirm her bravery, so there is no disagreement there to identify. Watch out for options that sound like disagreements but describe points the texts either share or never raise.
Question 14
Text A (summary): On May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens in Washington erupted. A magnitude 5.1 earthquake had set off a huge landslide. The sideways blast flattened forests and caused 57 deaths. Scientists had been watching the mountain for weeks. They warned that an eruption was likely, so officials created restricted zones. Some people entered the area anyway, but the monitoring and closures still lowered the number of deaths. The eruption also gave scientists useful data that improved later hazard planning.
Text B (magazine feature): The May 18, 1980, eruption of Mount St. Helens took many experts by surprise. Officials hesitated to restrict access, because they feared hurting local tourism, so many people stayed close to the volcano. When the mountain exploded, the tragedy suggested that scientific warnings had been unclear and that evacuations were poorly handled. The event is remembered less for improving hazard planning and more for showing how unprepared communities can be when leaders delay action.
Despite their disagreements, what do both texts clearly agree on?
- The eruption improved hazard planning and left communities far better prepared for future volcanic events.
- The eruption happened on May 18, 1980, at Mount St. Helens in Washington State. (correct answer)
- Officials handled the situation well and kept most people safely away from the dangerous volcano.
- Scientists gave the public clear, timely warnings that everyone understood well before the disaster.
Explanation: Both texts open with the same basic fact: the mountain erupted on May 18, 1980, at Mount St. Helens in Washington. They disagree about everything else, but they never disagree about when and where the eruption happened, which makes that shared date and place the correct answer. The claim that the eruption improved hazard planning and left communities better prepared is something only Text A supports; Text B says the event is remembered for showing how unprepared communities were, so the texts do not agree on it. The claim that officials handled the situation well fits Text A's picture of restricted zones, but Text B says officials hesitated and evacuations were poorly handled, so it is not shared. The claim that scientists gave clear, timely warnings matches Text A, yet Text B says the warnings had been unclear and that experts were caught by surprise. Each of those choices is a point of disagreement between the texts, not agreement, so only the date and location work.
Question 15
Text A (Science news brief): A science brief says Mount Pinatubo erupted in June 1991. It reports that scientists' warnings led to large evacuations that saved many lives. The brief adds that ash and sulfur gases entered the atmosphere. These gases cooled the whole planet for a short time.
Text B (Community interview): In an interview, a community leader raises a different concern. Officials focused too much on the global climate story instead of local needs. The leader says evacuations came late for some villages, and claims that housing problems mattered most. Those problems lasted for years after the eruption.
Why is this disagreement important to evaluate when learning about the eruption?
- Because the sources stress different views of the response and its impacts, shaping how we judge whether warnings worked. (correct answer)
- Because the interview only describes local problems, we can treat the science brief as the single complete account of the eruption.
- Because the two sources report different facts, we should average their claims together to find the one balanced truth in the middle.
- Because the leader witnessed events firsthand, the interview must be more accurate than a brief written by distant scientists.
Explanation: The brief and the interview highlight different parts of the same event: the brief praises the warnings and notes global cooling, while the leader points to late evacuations and years of housing trouble. Comparing both is what lets you judge how well the response actually worked and which impacts mattered most, so the choice about the sources stressing different views is correct. Treating the brief as the single complete account ignores that the interview reveals real local costs the brief left out. Averaging their claims to find a middle truth is wrong because the sources emphasize different topics, not opposite versions of one number you can split. Assuming the firsthand witness must be more accurate confuses closeness to events with reliability; each source can be strong about what it actually covers. Weighing conflicting sources means considering what each one knows, not automatically trusting or discarding either.
Question 16
Text A (city press release): In 2022, the city adopted a policy requiring most stores to charge a 10-cent fee for single-use plastic bags. City officials report a drop in plastic-bag litter, with cleanup crews collecting 30 percent less in 2023 than in 2021. The release argues the fee encourages shoppers to bring reusable bags. It also says the fee reduces clogged storm drains. Stores keep the fee to cover the cost of paper alternatives.
Text B (community newspaper): The report says the bag fee began in 2023, not 2022. Many small stores were confused by the changing rules. A neighborhood cleanup group reports that plastic-bag litter fell only about 10 percent. They noticed more paper-bag trash instead. The article argues the policy mainly shifted waste from plastic to paper, while raising costs for low-income families who may forget reusable bags. It suggests the city should have focused on better recycling enforcement instead of fees.
On what point do the texts disagree most directly?
- Whether the fee encourages shoppers to bring their own reusable bags to the store.
- Whether the policy actually reduced total waste or simply shifted it from plastic to paper.
- The year the policy started and how much plastic-bag litter actually dropped afterward. (correct answer)
- Whether the city should rely on bag fees or focus instead on better recycling enforcement.
Explanation: The sharpest clash is over checkable facts. Text A says the policy began in 2022 and that litter dropped 30 percent, while Text B says it began in 2023 and litter fell only about 10 percent. The choice naming the start date and the size of the drop captures that direct contradiction, so it is correct. The choice about encouraging reusable bags fails because both texts accept the fee exists and neither disputes that some shoppers switch. The choice about waste being shifted from plastic to paper is only Text B's argument; Text A never addresses this, so it is not a point of disagreement between them. The choice about fees versus recycling enforcement is also just Text B's recommendation, offered as an alternative, not a claim Text A pushes back on. Only the start date and litter percentage show both texts stating opposite facts about the same thing.
Question 17
Text A (astronomy blog, 2019): Pluto was discovered in 1930. For decades, people considered it the ninth planet. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union voted to redefine the word "planet." Pluto was then reclassified as a dwarf planet, because it has not cleared its orbital neighborhood. The author argues that this change improved scientific accuracy. It disappointed the public, but the author still supports it.
Text B (opinion column, 2021): Pluto, which was found in 1931, was unfairly demoted in 2006. A small committee changed the rules. The columnist claims that Pluto meets the most important idea of a planet. A planet, the columnist says, is round and orbits the Sun. The columnist says the reclassification was driven by politics and popularity, not science.
Which disagreement is primarily factual rather than interpretive?
- Whether the reclassification improved scientific accuracy, which one text supports and the other rejects.
- Whether the reclassification decision was made in the year 2006 or in some other year entirely.
- Whether Pluto was first discovered in the year 1930 or instead in the year 1931. (correct answer)
- Whether Pluto still deserves to be counted as a full planet in the sky today.
Explanation: A factual disagreement can be settled by checking a record; an interpretive one depends on judgment. The two texts give different discovery years, 1930 versus 1931, and a record can confirm which is right, so this is the factual disagreement and the correct choice. The claim about improving scientific accuracy is a judgment: whether the change made science better is an opinion the texts argue over, not a fact records can settle. The claim about the reclassification year sounds factual, but both texts actually agree it happened in 2006, so there is no real disagreement to check. The claim about whether Pluto still deserves to count as a planet also depends on values and definitions, making it interpretive rather than factual. Only the discovery-year question puts two verifiable, conflicting facts side by side.
Question 18
Text A (environmental nonprofit report): The report states that about 8 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year. It argues that the biggest source is mismanaged waste from land. Rivers carry that waste into the sea. The report says two steps would quickly reduce harm to wildlife: banning certain single-use plastics and improving waste collection.
Text B (industry research summary): The summary estimates closer to 4 million metric tons of plastic enter oceans each year. It claims that lost fishing gear and shipping waste are the largest contributors. It argues that bans are less effective than other steps. Better choices are cleanup technology and stronger recycling markets. Consumer products, it says, are only a small part of the problem.
Which option best identifies the main points of conflict?
- They disagree about the yearly amount of plastic, the main source (land waste versus fishing and shipping gear), and the best solutions. (correct answer)
- They disagree about the yearly amount of plastic, but they actually agree that land-based waste is the main source and that bans are the best solution.
- They agree about the yearly amount of plastic, but they disagree about the main source and about whether bans or cleanup technology work best.
- They disagree about the best solutions, but they actually agree on the yearly amount of plastic and on fishing gear being the main source.
Explanation: The texts clash on three points at once. They give different yearly amounts (about 8 million metric tons versus closer to 4 million). They name different main sources (mismanaged land waste versus lost fishing gear and shipping waste). And they favor different fixes (bans and better collection versus cleanup technology and recycling). The correct choice is the one that names all three conflicts. One tempting choice gets the amount conflict right but wrongly claims the texts agree on the source and the solution—they clearly do not. Another wrongly says they agree on the amount, when the two figures plainly differ. The last choice correctly notes a solutions conflict but falsely claims agreement on the amount and on fishing gear as the source, even though Text A blames land waste. Only one choice captures every real disagreement without inventing agreement that isn't there.
Question 19
Text A (city environmental report): A city report looked at its 2022 plastic-bag ban. It says the ban reduced litter in storm drains by 40 percent in the first year. The report admits that some shoppers bought more trash bags. Still, it argues that overall plastic waste dropped, because fewer thin bags were used and fewer bags reached waterways.
Text B (consumer advocacy article): An advocacy group says plastic-bag bans can backfire. It claims that after a ban, many people switch to thicker reusable bags but forget them, so they keep buying new ones. The article argues the environmental benefit is small at best. It suggests focusing on recycling programs instead.
On what do the texts agree, despite their disagreement?
- Both agree that storm-drain litter became noticeably worse during the ban's first year of operation.
- Both acknowledge that some shoppers change which kinds of bags they use after a ban. (correct answer)
- Both agree that expanded recycling programs would completely remove any reason to keep a bag ban.
- Both agree that thin plastic bags cause most of the litter that ends up in city waterways.
Explanation: The two texts disagree about whether the ban helps, but they describe the same behavior: after a ban, shoppers switch the bags they use. Text A notes people bought more trash bags, and Text B says people switch to reusable bags but keep buying new ones. So the choice about shoppers changing which bags they use is the shared point, making it correct. The choice about litter getting worse contradicts Text A, which reports a 40 percent drop in storm-drain litter. The recycling choice overstates Text B, which only suggests focusing on recycling, not that it removes all need for a ban. The choice about thin bags causing most waterway litter is a point only Text A raises, and Text B never agrees to it, so it is not shared.
Question 20
Text A (textbook summary): The Maya built impressive cities, but many southern lowland cities declined between about 800 and 900 CE. The textbook says long droughts were the main cause. Less rain meant crop failures, hunger, and people leaving the cities. It mentions warfare and political conflict too, but describes them as problems that grew worse after drought had weakened society.
Text B (historian's essay): The essay agrees that droughts happened, but argues they were not the main reason cities declined. It claims that competition among rulers led to frequent wars. There were also heavy demands for tribute and much unrest. According to the historian, these political problems made it hard to respond to environmental stress. Drought was only one factor.
What is the main type of disagreement between the texts?
- Mostly factual: they disagree about whether droughts actually happened in the region, with one text claiming there was no dry period at all.
- Mostly factual: they disagree about the exact dates when the southern lowland cities declined, giving different centuries for the collapse.
- Mostly interpretive: they disagree about which cause mattered most, though both texts name drought and political conflict as factors. (correct answer)
- Mostly interpretive: they disagree about whether the decline was even a bad thing, though both texts describe cities being abandoned.
Explanation: Both texts agree that droughts occurred and that warfare and political conflict happened. The real clash is about how to weigh those causes: the textbook makes drought the main reason and treats conflict as a later problem, while the historian makes political problems primary and calls drought just one factor. Because they disagree over emphasis, not facts, the disagreement is mostly interpretive — the answer naming which cause mattered most, with both texts listing drought and conflict, is correct. The choice claiming they dispute whether droughts happened is wrong, since both texts clearly state droughts occurred. The choice about disagreeing over the dates of decline is wrong, because both texts place the decline in the same 800–900 CE window. The choice saying they argue over whether the decline was a bad thing is wrong, because neither text debates that point — they both simply describe cities being abandoned and disagree only about the cause.