Card 0 of 52
“Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
Passage 2: “The Petrified Forest of Arizona” by E.A. J. Seddon, Associate Editor, Southern Division in The Mountain States Monitor, September 1918.
The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees. The name “Petrified Forest” is somewhat of a misnomer: the word “forest” suggests standing trees, but these trees fell over long ago and have been preserved in stone. At one time, they formed part of a forest of gigantic trees. They proudly reared their heads above the surrounding country, but they were conquered and laid low by some force of nature.
Then began the process of embalming and preserving these fallen monarchs. They were buried thousands of feet beneath the bottom of an inland sea. This was a vast pickling vat where the wood was slowly converted into living gems. We can tell this because volcanic cones and mineral springs still exist in the area.
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory. The wrappings of the dead monarchs were slowly washed away by erosion and corrosion. Then the glorious sun shone upon the trees once again. They were no longer rulers of the kingdom of flora, but preserved for all time as agate, jasper, opal, and other forms of silica.
About which of the following points do the passages present the most different interpretations?
This question asks us to identify the point about which the authors' interpretations differ the most. They need not outright disagree about the point, but they need to claim different things about it or interpret it in different ways. Neither passage mentions other materials besides wood being able to be petrified, so "what other materials besides wood can be petrified" cannot be correct. "How petrified wood differs from dinosaur fossils" cannot be correct either, since only Passage 1 discusses this point. We can't say that the passages present different interpretations of an idea if only one passage mentions it! This leaves us with three answers:
- Whether petrified wood can be found in Arizona
- What causes the different colors in petrified wood
- The role that water plays during the petrification process
Both passages agree about the role that water plays during the petrification process. Passage 1 states, "If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells." Passage 2 says, "Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure." These are very similar explanations, so "The role that water plays during the petrification process" can't be the correct answer.
The passages also agree about "whether petrified wood can be found in Arizona." In its last paragraph, Passage 1 states, "One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees." Passage 2 opens with the statement "The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees." (Its title can also help you infer that it is claiming petrified wood can be found in Arizona.) Thus, the passages agree about this point, too, making the related answer choice incorrect.
The correct answer—the statement about which the passages disagree most—is "What causes the different colors in petrified wood." Passage 1 says that "Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone." So, it says that the different colors are due to elements that affect the color of the minerals used to form the stone. Passage 2, on the other hand, mentions specific types of rock: "Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock." Passage 2's interpretation of what causes different colors to appear in petrified wood is quite different from the explanation that Passage 1 provides, so this is the correct answer.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1: “Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
Passage 2: “The Petrified Forest of Arizona” by E.A. J. Seddon, Associate Editor, Southern Division in The Mountain States Monitor, September 1918.
The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees. The name “Petrified Forest” is somewhat of a misnomer: the word “forest” suggests standing trees, but these trees fell over long ago and have been preserved in stone. At one time, they formed part of a forest of gigantic trees. They proudly reared their heads above the surrounding country, but they were conquered and laid low by some force of nature.
Then began the process of embalming and preserving these fallen monarchs. They were buried thousands of feet beneath the bottom of an inland sea. This was a vast pickling vat where the wood was slowly converted into living gems. We can tell this because volcanic cones and mineral springs still exist in the area.
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory. The wrappings of the dead monarchs were slowly washed away by erosion and corrosion. Then the glorious sun shone upon the trees once again. They were no longer rulers of the kingdom of flora, but preserved for all time as agate, jasper, opal, and other forms of silica.
Which of the following statements is true about the two passages?
Facing a comparison question like this can be intimidating. The answer choices are rather wordy, and each one involves comparing a specific aspect about a specific passage. It's very easy to get the passages mixed up, especially if you are in a hurry. Analyze one answer choice at a time to help narrow your focus.
"Passage 1 does not discuss the history of any words, but Passage 2 does." - Does Passage 1 discuss the history of any words? Yes, it does: in the first paragraph, it talks about the history of the word "petra." This answer can't be correct.
"Passage 1 does not compare petrified wood to dinosaur fossils, but Passage 2 does." - Does Passage 1 compare petrified wood to dinosaur fossils? It does, in the section "A Type of Fossil." This section begins, "Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils." Thus, this answer choice is incorrect too.
"Passage 1 describes how petrified wood ends up on the Earth’s surface after being petrified, whereas Passage 2 does not discuss this." - Does Passage 1 describe how petrified wood ends up on the Earth's surface after being petrified? No, but Passage 2 talks about this when it states, "Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory," but Passage 1 certainly doesn't talk about it at all. This answer is incorrect.
"Passage 1 discusses the petrified wood found in a specific area, while Passage 2 discusses petrified wood in general." - Passage 2 focuses on the Petrified Forest of Arizona and focuses all of its description on petrified wood in this area. Passage 1, on the other hand, provides a general description of petrified wood, adding in some detail about where it can be found but for the most part discussing it as a general concept. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.
"Passage 1 discusses the role of oxygen in petrification, but Passage 2 doesn’t discuss oxygen at all." - This answer choice is correct! In the section "From Tree to Stone," Passage 1 talks about how to be petrified, trees must be buried so that oxygen cannot get to them or they will rot. Passage 2 doesn't mention oxygen at all.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
“Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
Passage 2: “The Petrified Forest of Arizona” by E.A. J. Seddon, Associate Editor, Southern Division in The Mountain States Monitor, September 1918.
The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees. The name “Petrified Forest” is somewhat of a misnomer: the word “forest” suggests standing trees, but these trees fell over long ago and have been preserved in stone. At one time, they formed part of a forest of gigantic trees. They proudly reared their heads above the surrounding country, but they were conquered and laid low by some force of nature.
Then began the process of embalming and preserving these fallen monarchs. They were buried thousands of feet beneath the bottom of an inland sea. This was a vast pickling vat where the wood was slowly converted into living gems. We can tell this because volcanic cones and mineral springs still exist in the area.
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory. The wrappings of the dead monarchs were slowly washed away by erosion and corrosion. Then the glorious sun shone upon the trees once again. They were no longer rulers of the kingdom of flora, but preserved for all time as agate, jasper, opal, and other forms of silica.
A friend of yours knows a lot about different types of rocks and is interested in learning about petrified wood. You know your friend would be most interested in the passage that includes the most detailed discussion of the types of rocks that form petrified wood. Which passage would you recommend your friend read, and why?
To answer this question correctly, you need to consider how each passage discusses types of rock. Specifically, you need to compare the level of detail used in each and pick out the one that goes into more detail about this particular topic.
Passage 1 mentions rocks in its fourth paragraph, in the section "From Tree to Stone":
If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
This passage talks about "minerals" in the water, a relatively general term, and says that the different colors of petrified wood are caused by "different elements . . . that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone." That doesn't seem like a lot of detail about different types of rocks, but let's consider Passage 2 and see how the two compare.
Passage 2 talks about rocks in its third paragraph:
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Passage 2 also talks about "minerals" in the water forming the stone of petrified trees, but it also specifies that the wood is replaced by "silica, a type of rock." It then discusses how "iron oxides" in the silica "created" the colors in the rock. This passage goes into much more detail about types of rock than Passage 1 does because it mentions silica and iron oxides. "Passage 2, “The Petrified Forest of Arizona,” because it talks about silica and iron oxides" is the correct answer.
"Both passages, because they both discuss specific types of rocks" is not the correct answer because as we've seen, the passages differ in the specificity with which they discuss types of rocks. "Both passages, because they both discuss petrification" is not correct because this is even more general—while both discuss petrification, they vary in how they discuss types of rocks. "Neither passage, because different types of rocks are irrelevant to the subject matter of either passage" is incorrect because types of rocks are relevant to the subject matter of each passage, petrified wood and its formation.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
The penny has long outlived its usefulness in the monetary system and should be removed from use. Pennies cost more to produce than the value they represent. In fact, it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.
Additionally, the penny does not represent the real level of purchasing power. Go to the corner store today and ask for the “penny candy,” and you might be routed to a row of treats, but you’re unlikely to find anything for purchase for under a quarter.
On top of the cost and lack of benefit, pennies are also heavy for their value, so much so that many don’t even care to keep the pennies they receive in change. 11% of people report that they would rather throw a penny away than carry it around with them, and over $62 million dollars in coins are thrown out annually - most of the pennies.
Whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process. Even most charities would rather do without the pennies they receive! It’s time we let go of this costly antiquity and get rid of the penny once and for all!
Passage 2:
The penny is a sacred historic symbol in America and should be respected for its historical value. Over half of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny, and many fear the trend that eliminating low-value currency sets. “Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers, and as inflation continues, the nickel, the dime, and even the quarter could follow!
Not only does the penny help keep costs low, but it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively. The penny is also a powerful historical tribute to Abraham Lincoln, who has appeared on the penny’s face since 1909.
The penny represents far more than its one-cent value and eliminating it would take a toll on the history it represents and the majority of citizens who seek to keep it in commission.
Which of the following is an element used to support the arguments of both authors?
The authors of both arguments use cost to support their arguments. The author of Passage 1 argues that “it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.” The author of Passage 2 also cites cost, claiming that “Not only does the penny help keep costs low, it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively.” So, the element of support used by both authors, despite their opposing views, is cost.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
The penny has long outlived its usefulness in the monetary system and should be removed from use. Pennies cost more to produce than the value they represent. In fact, it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.
Additionally, the penny does not represent the real level of purchasing power. Go to the corner store today and ask for the “penny candy,” and you might be routed to a row of treats, but you’re unlikely to find anything for purchase for under a quarter.
On top of the cost and lack of benefit, pennies are also heavy for their value, so much so that many don’t even care to keep the pennies they receive in change. 11% of people report that they would rather throw a penny away than carry it around with them, and over $62 million dollars in coins are thrown out annually - most of the pennies.
Whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process. Even most charities would rather do without the pennies they receive! It’s time we let go of this costly antiquity and get rid of the penny once and for all!
Passage 2:
The penny is a sacred historic symbol in America and should be respected for its historical value. Over half of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny, and many fear the trend that eliminating low-value currency sets. “Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers, and as inflation continues, the nickel, the dime, and even the quarter could follow!
Not only does the penny help keep costs low, but it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively. The penny is also a powerful historical tribute to Abraham Lincoln, who has appeared on the penny’s face since 1909.
The penny represents far more than its one-cent value and eliminating it would take a toll on the history it represents and the majority of citizens who seek to keep it in commission.
The following statement would best support which point of view in the passage?
The zinc used in the production of today’s penny is extremely harmful to the environment.
The author of passage 1 is in favor of discontinuing the use of the penny, while the author of passage two makes the claim that the penny should remain in use. The evidence provided in the statement shows another disadvantage of the penny and would be used to strengthen the argument of the passage advocating for the elimination of the penny, Passage 1.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
The penny has long outlived its usefulness in the monetary system and should be removed from use. Pennies cost more to produce than the value they represent. In fact, it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.
Additionally, the penny does not represent the real level of purchasing power. Go to the corner store today and ask for the “penny candy,” and you might be routed to a row of treats, but you’re unlikely to find anything for purchase for under a quarter.
On top of the cost and lack of benefit, pennies are also heavy for their value, so much so that many don’t even care to keep the pennies they receive in change. 11% of people report that they would rather throw a penny away than carry it around with them, and over $62 million dollars in coins are thrown out annually - most of the pennies.
Whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process. Even most charities would rather do without the pennies they receive! It’s time we let go of this costly antiquity and get rid of the penny once and for all!
Passage 2:
The penny is a sacred historic symbol in America and should be respected for its historical value. Over half of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny, and many fear the trend that eliminating low-value currency sets. “Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers, and as inflation continues, the nickel, the dime, and even the quarter could follow!
Not only does the penny help keep costs low, but it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively. The penny is also a powerful historical tribute to Abraham Lincoln, who has appeared on the penny’s face since 1909.
The penny represents far more than its one-cent value and eliminating it would take a toll on the history it represents and the majority of citizens who seek to keep it in commission.
Which of the following is cited as support for the arguments of Passages 1 and 2 respectively?
The author of Passage 1 makes the case that the penny should be eliminated, and uses support such as lack of usefulness, lack of purchase power, cost, weight, and inconvenience to support this argument. The author of Passage 2 believes that the penny should remain in use, and cites support such as historical significance, rounding tax, cost, and popularity. Only the answer “Passage 1: inconvenience; Passage 2: rounding tax” correctly matches an element of support to its corresponding argument.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
The penny has long outlived its usefulness in the monetary system and should be removed from use. Pennies cost more to produce than the value they represent. In fact, it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.
Additionally, the penny does not represent the real level of purchasing power. Go to the corner store today and ask for the “penny candy,” and you might be routed to a row of treats, but you’re unlikely to find anything for purchase for under a quarter.
On top of the cost and lack of benefit, pennies are also heavy for their value, so much so that many don’t even care to keep the pennies they receive in change. 11% of people report that they would rather throw a penny away than carry it around with them, and over $62 million dollars in coins are thrown out annually - most of the pennies.
Whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process. Even most charities would rather do without the pennies they receive! It’s time we let go of this costly antiquity and get rid of the penny once and for all!
Passage 2:
The penny is a sacred historic symbol in America and should be respected for its historical value. Over half of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny, and many fear the trend that eliminating low-value currency sets. “Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers, and as inflation continues, the nickel, the dime, and even the quarter could follow!
Not only does the penny help keep costs low, but it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively. The penny is also a powerful historical tribute to Abraham Lincoln, who has appeared on the penny’s face since 1909.
The penny represents far more than its one-cent value and eliminating it would take a toll on the history it represents and the majority of citizens who seek to keep it in commission.
Which of the following represents an opinion that would likely be held by the authors of both passages?
While the remaining answer options might represent the perspective of one author but not the other, the option “Eliminating the penny would have an impact on the shopping experience of consumers” addresses an opinion held by both authors. While the authors disagree about the positive vs. negative nature of the penny’s impact on consumers, both authors use the consumer shopping experience to support their respective opinions about the usefulness and popularity of the penny. The author of Passage 1 notes the time-consuming nature (whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process) while the author of Passage 2 cites the change in the cost to consumers (“Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers).
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
The penny has long outlived its usefulness in the monetary system and should be removed from use. Pennies cost more to produce than the value they represent. In fact, it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.
Additionally, the penny does not represent the real level of purchasing power. Go to the corner store today and ask for the “penny candy,” and you might be routed to a row of treats, but you’re unlikely to find anything for purchase for under a quarter.
On top of the cost and lack of benefit, pennies are also heavy for their value, so much so that many don’t even care to keep the pennies they receive in change. 11% of people report that they would rather throw a penny away than carry it around with them, and over $62 million dollars in coins are thrown out annually - most of the pennies.
Whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process. Even most charities would rather do without the pennies they receive! It’s time we let go of this costly antiquity and get rid of the penny once and for all!
Passage 2:
The penny is a sacred historic symbol in America and should be respected for its historical value. Over half of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny, and many fear the trend that eliminating low-value currency sets. “Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers, and as inflation continues, the nickel, the dime, and even the quarter could follow!
Not only does the penny help keep costs low, but it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively. The penny is also a powerful historical tribute to Abraham Lincoln, who has appeared on the penny’s face since 1909.
The penny represents far more than its one-cent value and eliminating it would take a toll on the history it represents and the majority of citizens who seek to keep it in commission.
The following appeared in a news article concerning the production of the penny:
While the penny is initially more costly to produce for its value, its lifespan outweighs that of any other coin. This makes the penny the most cost-effective coin for its value.
Which argument would this information best support?
The information provided in the news article provides evidence that the penny is “the most cost-effective coin for its value” once we consider its expected lifespan. So, this evidence would support the argument made by Passage 2 - the author suggesting that the penny should remain in service.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
Which of the following expresses a point the authors of both passages agree on?
While the authors disagree about many aspects of graffiti art, and whether it can even be considered art, the authors of both passages cite support showing how popular some graffiti artists and their works have become. Passage 1 cites that “the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is,” and includes the example of Banksy, a popular graffiti artist. The author of Passage 2 concedes that some of these artists have become popular, but includes this as a negative factor, as “popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
Which of the following expresses a point the authors of the passages disagree with one another about?
While the authors of both passages claim that at least some of the graffiti created is physically impressive, that it is an increasingly popular trend, and that its origins tie back to rebellion and criminal activities, both authors would not agree that graffiti should be respected as a popular art form. While the author of Passage 1 believes that this is true, the author of Passage 2 refuses to consider this work art, instead insisting it is nothing more than vandalism and crime. Thus, “Graffiti should be respected as a popular art form,” would be a topic the authors disagree with one another about.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
Who would be most likely to agree with the following statement?
The history of graffiti is rooted in anarchy and rebellion.
Both passages cite the origins of graffiti as “rebellious” or “an act of anarchy and rebellion.” So, while the authors disagree about the merits of graffiti, they seem to agree on its origins.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
If the following evidence were provided, which argument would it most support?
A well-known local graffiti artist has partnered with the local art museum to host a “beautify the city” project teaching children street art and the importance of service to the community.
The evidence presented shows an example of a graffiti artist making a positive contribution to society and the artist’s community. This supports the argument made by Passage 1, which makes the claim that graffiti’s “contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives.” The author of Passage 2, on the other hand, states that graffiti “causes nothing but negative impacts on its community.” This statement is clearly weakened by the evidence provided. So, “this evidence would support the argument made in Passage 1 but refute the argument made in Passage 2.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
Which of the following is a term the authors of both passages might use to describe graffiti?
While the authors of the passages disagree about the nature of the impact graffiti has on its community, both authors cite impacts of the art form on the community. The author of Passage 1 expresses that the contributions of graffiti on society and the community have been primarily positive, while the author of Passage 2 claims that graffiti “causes nothing but negative impacts on its community.” The common theme between these opinions is the impact - both authors note that graffiti is impactful on its community, it’s the nature of this impact that the authors dispute.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
Who would be most likely to agree with the following statement?
The history of graffiti is rooted in anarchy and rebellion.
Both passages cite the origins of graffiti as “rebellious” or “an act of anarchy and rebellion.” So, while the authors disagree about the merits of graffiti, they seem to agree on its origins.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
If the following evidence were provided, which argument would it most support?
A well-known local graffiti artist has partnered with the local art museum to host a “beautify the city” project teaching children street art and the importance of service to the community.
The evidence presented shows an example of a graffiti artist making a positive contribution to society and the artist’s community. This supports the argument made by Passage 1, which makes the claim that graffiti’s “contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives.” The author of Passage 2, on the other hand, states that graffiti “causes nothing but negative impacts on its community.” This statement is clearly weakened by the evidence provided. So, “this evidence would support the argument made in Passage 1 but refute the argument made in Passage 2.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
Which of the following is a term the authors of both passages might use to describe graffiti?
While the authors of the passages disagree about the nature of the impact graffiti has on its community, both authors cite impacts of the art form on the community. The author of Passage 1 expresses that the contributions of graffiti on society and the community have been primarily positive, while the author of Passage 2 claims that graffiti “causes nothing but negative impacts on its community.” The common theme between these opinions is the impact - both authors note that graffiti is impactful on its community, it’s the nature of this impact that the authors dispute.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
“Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
Passage 2: “The Petrified Forest of Arizona” by E.A. J. Seddon, Associate Editor, Southern Division in The Mountain States Monitor, September 1918.
The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees. The name “Petrified Forest” is somewhat of a misnomer: the word “forest” suggests standing trees, but these trees fell over long ago and have been preserved in stone. At one time, they formed part of a forest of gigantic trees. They proudly reared their heads above the surrounding country, but they were conquered and laid low by some force of nature.
Then began the process of embalming and preserving these fallen monarchs. They were buried thousands of feet beneath the bottom of an inland sea. This was a vast pickling vat where the wood was slowly converted into living gems. We can tell this because volcanic cones and mineral springs still exist in the area.
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory. The wrappings of the dead monarchs were slowly washed away by erosion and corrosion. Then the glorious sun shone upon the trees once again. They were no longer rulers of the kingdom of flora, but preserved for all time as agate, jasper, opal, and other forms of silica.
About which of the following points do the passages present the most different interpretations?
This question asks us to identify the point about which the authors' interpretations differ the most. They need not outright disagree about the point, but they need to claim different things about it or interpret it in different ways. Neither passage mentions other materials besides wood being able to be petrified, so "what other materials besides wood can be petrified" cannot be correct. "How petrified wood differs from dinosaur fossils" cannot be correct either, since only Passage 1 discusses this point. We can't say that the passages present different interpretations of an idea if only one passage mentions it! This leaves us with three answers:
- Whether petrified wood can be found in Arizona
- What causes the different colors in petrified wood
- The role that water plays during the petrification process
Both passages agree about the role that water plays during the petrification process. Passage 1 states, "If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells." Passage 2 says, "Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure." These are very similar explanations, so "The role that water plays during the petrification process" can't be the correct answer.
The passages also agree about "whether petrified wood can be found in Arizona." In its last paragraph, Passage 1 states, "One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees." Passage 2 opens with the statement "The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees." (Its title can also help you infer that it is claiming petrified wood can be found in Arizona.) Thus, the passages agree about this point, too, making the related answer choice incorrect.
The correct answer—the statement about which the passages disagree most—is "What causes the different colors in petrified wood." Passage 1 says that "Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone." So, it says that the different colors are due to elements that affect the color of the minerals used to form the stone. Passage 2, on the other hand, mentions specific types of rock: "Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock." Passage 2's interpretation of what causes different colors to appear in petrified wood is quite different from the explanation that Passage 1 provides, so this is the correct answer.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1: “Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
Passage 2: “The Petrified Forest of Arizona” by E.A. J. Seddon, Associate Editor, Southern Division in The Mountain States Monitor, September 1918.
The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees. The name “Petrified Forest” is somewhat of a misnomer: the word “forest” suggests standing trees, but these trees fell over long ago and have been preserved in stone. At one time, they formed part of a forest of gigantic trees. They proudly reared their heads above the surrounding country, but they were conquered and laid low by some force of nature.
Then began the process of embalming and preserving these fallen monarchs. They were buried thousands of feet beneath the bottom of an inland sea. This was a vast pickling vat where the wood was slowly converted into living gems. We can tell this because volcanic cones and mineral springs still exist in the area.
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory. The wrappings of the dead monarchs were slowly washed away by erosion and corrosion. Then the glorious sun shone upon the trees once again. They were no longer rulers of the kingdom of flora, but preserved for all time as agate, jasper, opal, and other forms of silica.
Which of the following statements is true about the two passages?
Facing a comparison question like this can be intimidating. The answer choices are rather wordy, and each one involves comparing a specific aspect about a specific passage. It's very easy to get the passages mixed up, especially if you are in a hurry. Analyze one answer choice at a time to help narrow your focus.
"Passage 1 does not discuss the history of any words, but Passage 2 does." - Does Passage 1 discuss the history of any words? Yes, it does: in the first paragraph, it talks about the history of the word "petra." This answer can't be correct.
"Passage 1 does not compare petrified wood to dinosaur fossils, but Passage 2 does." - Does Passage 1 compare petrified wood to dinosaur fossils? It does, in the section "A Type of Fossil." This section begins, "Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils." Thus, this answer choice is incorrect too.
"Passage 1 describes how petrified wood ends up on the Earth’s surface after being petrified, whereas Passage 2 does not discuss this." - Does Passage 1 describe how petrified wood ends up on the Earth's surface after being petrified? No, but Passage 2 talks about this when it states, "Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory," but Passage 1 certainly doesn't talk about it at all. This answer is incorrect.
"Passage 1 discusses the petrified wood found in a specific area, while Passage 2 discusses petrified wood in general." - Passage 2 focuses on the Petrified Forest of Arizona and focuses all of its description on petrified wood in this area. Passage 1, on the other hand, provides a general description of petrified wood, adding in some detail about where it can be found but for the most part discussing it as a general concept. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.
"Passage 1 discusses the role of oxygen in petrification, but Passage 2 doesn’t discuss oxygen at all." - This answer choice is correct! In the section "From Tree to Stone," Passage 1 talks about how to be petrified, trees must be buried so that oxygen cannot get to them or they will rot. Passage 2 doesn't mention oxygen at all.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
“Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
Passage 2: “The Petrified Forest of Arizona” by E.A. J. Seddon, Associate Editor, Southern Division in The Mountain States Monitor, September 1918.
The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees. The name “Petrified Forest” is somewhat of a misnomer: the word “forest” suggests standing trees, but these trees fell over long ago and have been preserved in stone. At one time, they formed part of a forest of gigantic trees. They proudly reared their heads above the surrounding country, but they were conquered and laid low by some force of nature.
Then began the process of embalming and preserving these fallen monarchs. They were buried thousands of feet beneath the bottom of an inland sea. This was a vast pickling vat where the wood was slowly converted into living gems. We can tell this because volcanic cones and mineral springs still exist in the area.
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory. The wrappings of the dead monarchs were slowly washed away by erosion and corrosion. Then the glorious sun shone upon the trees once again. They were no longer rulers of the kingdom of flora, but preserved for all time as agate, jasper, opal, and other forms of silica.
A friend of yours knows a lot about different types of rocks and is interested in learning about petrified wood. You know your friend would be most interested in the passage that includes the most detailed discussion of the types of rocks that form petrified wood. Which passage would you recommend your friend read, and why?
To answer this question correctly, you need to consider how each passage discusses types of rock. Specifically, you need to compare the level of detail used in each and pick out the one that goes into more detail about this particular topic.
Passage 1 mentions rocks in its fourth paragraph, in the section "From Tree to Stone":
If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
This passage talks about "minerals" in the water, a relatively general term, and says that the different colors of petrified wood are caused by "different elements . . . that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone." That doesn't seem like a lot of detail about different types of rocks, but let's consider Passage 2 and see how the two compare.
Passage 2 talks about rocks in its third paragraph:
Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock.
Passage 2 also talks about "minerals" in the water forming the stone of petrified trees, but it also specifies that the wood is replaced by "silica, a type of rock." It then discusses how "iron oxides" in the silica "created" the colors in the rock. This passage goes into much more detail about types of rock than Passage 1 does because it mentions silica and iron oxides. "Passage 2, “The Petrified Forest of Arizona,” because it talks about silica and iron oxides" is the correct answer.
"Both passages, because they both discuss specific types of rocks" is not the correct answer because as we've seen, the passages differ in the specificity with which they discuss types of rocks. "Both passages, because they both discuss petrification" is not correct because this is even more general—while both discuss petrification, they vary in how they discuss types of rocks. "Neither passage, because different types of rocks are irrelevant to the subject matter of either passage" is incorrect because types of rocks are relevant to the subject matter of each passage, petrified wood and its formation.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
The penny has long outlived its usefulness in the monetary system and should be removed from use. Pennies cost more to produce than the value they represent. In fact, it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.
Additionally, the penny does not represent the real level of purchasing power. Go to the corner store today and ask for the “penny candy,” and you might be routed to a row of treats, but you’re unlikely to find anything for purchase for under a quarter.
On top of the cost and lack of benefit, pennies are also heavy for their value, so much so that many don’t even care to keep the pennies they receive in change. 11% of people report that they would rather throw a penny away than carry it around with them, and over $62 million dollars in coins are thrown out annually - most of the pennies.
Whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process. Even most charities would rather do without the pennies they receive! It’s time we let go of this costly antiquity and get rid of the penny once and for all!
Passage 2:
The penny is a sacred historic symbol in America and should be respected for its historical value. Over half of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny, and many fear the trend that eliminating low-value currency sets. “Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers, and as inflation continues, the nickel, the dime, and even the quarter could follow!
Not only does the penny help keep costs low, but it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively. The penny is also a powerful historical tribute to Abraham Lincoln, who has appeared on the penny’s face since 1909.
The penny represents far more than its one-cent value and eliminating it would take a toll on the history it represents and the majority of citizens who seek to keep it in commission.
Which of the following is an element used to support the arguments of both authors?
The authors of both arguments use cost to support their arguments. The author of Passage 1 argues that “it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.” The author of Passage 2 also cites cost, claiming that “Not only does the penny help keep costs low, it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively.” So, the element of support used by both authors, despite their opposing views, is cost.
Compare your answer with the correct one above