Card 0 of 64
Adapted from Pinocchio by Carl Collodi (1883)
There was once upon a time a piece of wood in the shop of an old carpenter named Master Antonio. Everybody, however, called him Master Cherry, on account of the end of his nose, which was always as red and polished as a ripe cherry.
No sooner had Master Cherry set eyes on the piece of wood than his face beamed with delight, and, rubbing his hands together with satisfaction, he said softly to himself:
"This wood has come at the right moment; it will just do to make the leg of a little table."
He immediately took a sharp axe with which to remove the bark and the rough surface, but just as he was going to give the first stroke he heard a very small voice say imploringly, "Do not strike me so hard!"
He turned his terrified eyes all around the room to try and discover where the little voice could possibly have come from, but he saw nobody! He looked under the bench—nobody; he looked into a cupboard that was always shut—nobody; he looked into a basket of shavings and sawdust—nobody; he even opened the door of the shop and gave a glance into the street—and still nobody. Who, then, could it be?
"I see how it is," he said, laughing and scratching his wig, "evidently that little voice was all my imagination. Let us set to work again."
And, taking up the axe, he struck a tremendous blow on the piece of wood.
"Oh! oh! you have hurt me!" cried the same little voice dolefully.
This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:
"But where on earth can that little voice have come from that said 'Oh! oh!'? Is it possible that this piece of wood can have learned to cry and to lament like a child? I cannot believe it. This piece of wood is nothing but a log for fuel like all the others, and thrown on the fire it would about suffice to boil a saucepan of beans. How then? Can anyone be hidden inside it? If anyone is hidden inside, so much the worse for him. I will settle him at once."
So saying, he seized the poor piece of wood and commenced beating it without mercy against the walls of the room.
Then he stopped to listen if he could hear any little voice lamenting. He waited two minutes—nothing; five minutes—nothing; ten minutes—still nothing!
"I see how it is," he then said, forcing himself to laugh, and pushing up his wig; "evidently the little voice that said 'Oh! oh!' was all my imagination! Let us set to work again."
Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"
This time poor Master Cherry fell down as if he had been struck by lightning. When he at last opened his eyes he found himself seated on the floor.
His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright.
Why was Master Cherry scared?
There are two main parts of the passage that tells us why Master Cherry was scared:
"This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:"
and
"His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright."
If we look at the text around these parts of the passage, they all come after Master Cherry realizes that the wood is talking; thus, the correct answer is that Master Cherry was scared because the wood was talking.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from Pinocchio by Carl Collodi (1883)
There was once upon a time a piece of wood in the shop of an old carpenter named Master Antonio. Everybody, however, called him Master Cherry, on account of the end of his nose, which was always as red and polished as a ripe cherry.
No sooner had Master Cherry set eyes on the piece of wood than his face beamed with delight, and, rubbing his hands together with satisfaction, he said softly to himself:
"This wood has come at the right moment; it will just do to make the leg of a little table."
He immediately took a sharp axe with which to remove the bark and the rough surface, but just as he was going to give the first stroke he heard a very small voice say imploringly, "Do not strike me so hard!"
He turned his terrified eyes all around the room to try and discover where the little voice could possibly have come from, but he saw nobody! He looked under the bench—nobody; he looked into a cupboard that was always shut—nobody; he looked into a basket of shavings and sawdust—nobody; he even opened the door of the shop and gave a glance into the street—and still nobody. Who, then, could it be?
"I see how it is," he said, laughing and scratching his wig, "evidently that little voice was all my imagination. Let us set to work again."
And, taking up the axe, he struck a tremendous blow on the piece of wood.
"Oh! oh! you have hurt me!" cried the same little voice dolefully.
This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:
"But where on earth can that little voice have come from that said 'Oh! oh!'? Is it possible that this piece of wood can have learned to cry and to lament like a child? I cannot believe it. This piece of wood is nothing but a log for fuel like all the others, and thrown on the fire it would about suffice to boil a saucepan of beans. How then? Can anyone be hidden inside it? If anyone is hidden inside, so much the worse for him. I will settle him at once."
So saying, he seized the poor piece of wood and commenced beating it without mercy against the walls of the room.
Then he stopped to listen if he could hear any little voice lamenting. He waited two minutes—nothing; five minutes—nothing; ten minutes—still nothing!
"I see how it is," he then said, forcing himself to laugh, and pushing up his wig; "evidently the little voice that said 'Oh! oh!' was all my imagination! Let us set to work again."
Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"
This time poor Master Cherry fell down as if he had been struck by lightning. When he at last opened his eyes he found himself seated on the floor.
His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright.
What was Master Cherry doing that was tickling the piece of wood?
The answer to this question is a detail from the text. This answer can be found in the text, near the end of the passage.
"Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"'
"Polishing the wood" is the correct answer.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from “When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer” in Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman (1865; 1900)
When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Which of the following excerpts serves as the strongest evidence that the astronomer is using math to study the stars?
To answer this question correctly, you need to pick out the answer choice that best demonstrates that the astronomer is using math in his studies. Scanning over the first few lines of the poem, a few words might stick out to you as potentially having to do with math: "columns" (Line 2) might have to do with math; "charts and diagrams" (Line 3) could also have to do with math, but they could also have to do with other subjects. After all, diagrams and charts refer to general explanatory images that may or may not have to do with math. You could draw a chart of stars' locations in the night sky or a diagram of how an engine works that each would have little to do with math. The best evidence that the astronomer is specifically using math that is mentioned in the answer choices is "to add, divide, and measure them” (Line 3). Adding and dividing are actions that are very specifically related to math, as they're mathematical operations. The narrator is being shown things to add, divide, and measure in the context of interacting with the astronomer, and this functions as very good evidence that the astronomer is using math to study the stars.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from “Introduced Species That Have Become Pests” in Our Vanishing Wild Life, Its Extermination and Protection by William Temple Hornaday (1913)
The man who successfully introduces into a new habitat any species of living thing assumes a very grave responsibility. Every introduced species is doubtful gravel until panned out. The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild animals and plants would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality. The most aggravating feature of these follies in transplantation is that never yet have they been made severely punishable. We are just as careless and easygoing on this point as we were about the government of Yellowstone Park in the days when Howell and other poachers destroyed our first national bison herd. Even though Howell was caught red-handed, skinning seven Park bison cows, he could not be punished for it, because there was no penalty prescribed by any law. Today, there is a way in which any revengeful person could inflict enormous damage on the entire South, at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money, yet go absolutely unpunished!
The gypsy moth is a case in point. This winged calamity was imported near Boston by a French entomologist, Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, in 1868 or 69. The scientist did not purposely set the pest free. He was endeavoring with live specimens to find a moth that would produce a cocoon of commercial value to America, and a sudden gust of wind blew his living and breeding specimens of the gypsy moth out of his study through an open window. The moth itself is not bad to look at, but its larvae is a great, overgrown brute with an appetite like a hog. Immediately Mr. Trouvelot sought to recover his specimens. When he failed to find them all, he notified the State authorities of the accident. Every effort was made to recover all the specimens, but enough escaped to produce progeny that soon became a scourge to the trees of Massachusetts. The method of the big, nasty-looking mottled-brown caterpillar was very simple. It devoured the entire foliage of every tree that grew in its sphere of influence.
The gypsy moth spread with alarming rapidity and persistence. In time, the state of Massachusetts was forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire. It was awful! Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!
The spread of this pest has been slowed, but the gypsy moth never will be wholly stamped out. Today it exists in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and it is due to reach New York at an early date. It is steadily spreading in three directions from Boston, its original point of departure, and when it strikes the State of New York, we, too, will begin to pay dearly for the Trouvelot experiment.
In which of the following sentences does the author offer the strongest evidence that combating invasive species can be very expensive?
The strongest evidence about the expensive nature fighting invasive species will need to in some way implicate or directly mention the cost of fighting the species. Let's consider each answer choice:
"The spread of this pest has been slowed, but the gypsy moth never will be wholly stamped out." - This sentence has nothing to do with the cost of fighting the gypsy moth's advancement; it just states that it is difficult to keep from advancing further.
"In time, the state of Massachusetts was forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire." - This sentence tells us the methods that Massachusetts has used to combat the gypsy moth, but it doesn't tell us anything about how expensive these methods are to use.
"The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild animals and plants would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality." - Now we're getting somewhere: this sentence considers a hypothetical scenario that estimates the total amount of money spent fighting invasive species the world over. The author says that it would be "enough to purchase a principality." That's a lot of money! While this statement is grand it its claim, it's also an estimate and hypothetical. It's the author's claim, and it might not relate to the actual state of things. There might be better evidence in the passage, so let's look at the remaining answer choices.
"Today, there is a way in which any revengeful person could inflict enormous damage on the entire South, at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money, yet go absolutely unpunished!" - This sentence also uses a hypothetical scenario to play up the cost involved in fighting an invasive species. The author states that by introducing a nonnative, destructive organism to the environment of the Southern states, could "at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money." Again, this is conjecture, and while it's a reasonable claim, it doesn't have any actual real-world data supporting it.
"Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!" - This is the correct answer. In this sentence, the author provides a distinct amount of money that the U.S. government and New England states have spent so far fighting the spread of the gypsy moth. Keep in mind that over seven and a half million dollars is a lot of money now, but it was worth even more in 1912 due to inflation since then. At any rate, we can tell that the author considers it to be a large sum because of the way he ends the sentence with an exclamation point to convey that this information is somehow shocking or exorbitant. This sentence provides the best evidence that fighting invasive species is expensive because it provides the actual total cost of fighting one invasive species. The other answer choices are based in the author's claims and conjectures, but this one is based in a quantitative fact.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from "Save the Redwoods" by John Muir in Sierra Club Bulletin Volume XI Number 1 (January 1920)
Forty-seven years ago one of these Calaveras King Sequoias was laboriously cut down, that the stump might be had for a dancing-floor. Another, one of the finest in the grove, was skinned alive to a height of one hundred and sixteen feet and the bark sent to London to show how fine and big that Calaveras tree was—as sensible a scheme as skinning our great men would be to prove their greatness. Now some millmen want to cut all the Calaveras trees into lumber and money. No doubt these trees would make good lumber after passing through a sawmill, as George Washington after passing through the hands of a French cook would have made good food. But both for Washington and the tree that bears his name higher uses have been found.
Could one of these Sequoia Kings come to town in all its godlike majesty so as to be strikingly seen and allowed to plead its own cause, there would never again be any lack of defenders. And the same may be said of all the other Sequoia groves and forests of the Sierra with their companions and the noble Sequoia sempervirens, or redwood, of the coast mountains.
In these noble groves and forests to the southward of the Calaveras Grove the axe and saw have long been busy, and thousands of the finest Sequoias have been felled, blasted into manageable dimensions, and sawed into lumber by methods destructive almost beyond belief, while fires have spread still wider and more lamentable ruin. In the course of my explorations twenty-five years ago, I found five sawmills located on or near the lower margin of the Sequoia belt, all of which were cutting more or less \[Sequoia gigantea\] lumber, which looks like the redwood of the coast, and was sold as redwood. One of the smallest of these mills in the season of 1874 sawed two million feet of Sequoia lumber. Since that time other mills have been built among the Sequoias, notably the large ones on Kings River and the head of the Fresno. The destruction of these grand trees is still going on. On the other hand, the Calaveras Grove for forty years has been faithfully protected by Mr. Sperry, and with the exception of the two trees mentioned above is still in primeval beauty. For the thousands of acres of Sequoia forest outside of reservations and national parks, and in the hands of lumbermen, no help is in sight.
Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot defend themselves or run away. And few destroyers of trees ever plant any; nor can planting avail much toward restoring our grand aboriginal giants. It took more than three thousand years to make some of the oldest of the Sequoias, trees that are still standing in perfect strength and beauty, waving and singing in the mighty forests of the Sierra.
In which of the following sentences does the author provide the strongest evidence in support of his statement, "The destruction of these grand trees is still going on"?
In looking for the strongest evidence supporting this claim, we'll need to keep something in mind: the author is claiming that not only have Sequoia trees been destroyed in the past, but that this destruction is ongoing in the time he is writing. This is the gist of the sentence: the author wants to make sure his readers interpret the destruction of Sequoias as a real, existing threat at the time of writing, not just something bad that happened to the trees in the past. With this in mind, let's consider the answer choices.
"It took more than three thousand years to make some of the oldest of the Sequoias, trees that are still standing in perfect strength and beauty, waving and singing in the mighty forests of the Sierra." - This sentence has nothing to do with ongoing destruction of Sequoia trees. It just tells us how old some of the trees are, and how long they take to grow.
"Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot defend themselves or run away." - These sentences tell us that it's easy to destroy trees, but they don't make any particular mention of ongoing destruction of the trees that is actually occurring. This isn't the best evidence.
"On the other hand, the Calaveras Grove for forty years has been faithfully protected by Mr. Sperry, and with the exception of the two trees mentioned above is still in primeval beauty." - This sentence does the opposite of the one for which we're looking: it tells us about a certain group of Sequoias that has been protected, not destroyed.
"In the course of my explorations twenty-five years ago, I found five sawmills located on or near the lower margin of the Sequoia belt, all of which were cutting more or less \[Sequoia gigantea\] lumber, which looks like the redwood of the coast, and was sold as redwood." - This is the trickiest incorrect answer. It describes sawmills that the author saw cutting Sequoia trees up into lumber, but it specifies that the author witnessed these sawmills at work "twenty-five years ago." Nothing in the sentence specifically suggests that the sawmills are still functioning today and creating a present threat to the Sequoia trees.
"Since that time other mills have been built among the Sequoias, notably the large ones on Kings River and the head of the Fresno." - This is the correct answer. It tells us that new sawmills have been built in Sequoia groves since the author's observations twenty-five years ago. This suggests that not only are the old mills continuing to run and be profitable, but that more mills are sawing more Sequoia trees in the author's present day.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from “Feathers of Sea Birds and Wild Fowl for Bedding” from The Utility of Birds by Edward Forbush (ed. 1922)
In the colder countries of the world, the feathers and down of waterfowl have been in great demand for centuries. These materials have been used as filling for beds and pillows. Such feathers are perfect insulators of heat, and beds, pillows, or coverlets filled with them represent the acme of comfort and durability.
The early settlers of New England saved for such purposes the feathers and down from the thousands of wild-fowl which they killed, but as the population of people increased, the quantity of feathers furnished in this manner became insufficient, and the people sought a larger supply in the vast colonies of ducks and geese along the Labrador coast.
The manner in which the feathers and down were obtained, unlike the method practiced in Iceland, did not tend to conserve and protect the source of supply. In Iceland, the people have continued to receive for many years a considerable income by collecting eider down (the small, fluffy feathers of eider ducks), but there they do not “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.” Ducks line their nests with down plucked from their own breasts and that of the eider is particularly valuable for bedding. In Iceland, these birds are so carefully protected that they have become as tame and unsuspicious as domestic fowls In North America. Where they are constantly hunted they often conceal their nests in the midst of weeds or bushes, but in Iceland, they make their nests and deposit their eggs in holes dug for them in the sod. A supply of the ducks is maintained so that the people derive from them an annual income.
In North America, quite a different policy was pursued. The demand for feathers became so great in the New England colonies during the middle of the eighteenth century that vessels were sent to Labrador for the express purpose of securing the feathers and down of wild fowl. Eider down having become valuable and these ducks being in the habit of congregating by thousands on barren islands of the Labrador coast, the birds became the victims of the ships’ crews. As the ducks molt all their primary feathers at once in July or August and are then quite incapable of flight and the young birds are unable to fly until well grown, the hunters were able to surround the helpless birds, drive them together, and kill them with clubs. Otis says that millions of wildfowl were thus destroyed and that in a few years their haunts were so broken up by this wholesale slaughter and their numbers were so diminished that feather voyages became unprofitable and were given up.
This practice, followed by the almost continual egging, clubbing, shooting, etc. by Labrador fishermen, may have been a chief factor in the extinction of the Labrador duck. No doubt had the eider duck been restricted in its breeding range to the islands of Labrador, it also would have been exterminated long ago.
In which of the following sentences does the author provide the strongest evidence about why a large amount of feathers were able to be obtained on Labrador specifically?
Let's consider each of the answer choices individually to figure out which one functions as the best evidence for the question's particular claim.
"In the colder countries of the world, the feathers and down of waterfowl have been in great demand for centuries." - This statement is too general to be the correct answer. It has nothing to do with Labrador specifically, which is specified in the claim.
"This practice, followed by the almost continual egging, clubbing, shooting, etc. by Labrador fishermen, may have been a chief factor in the extinction of the Labrador duck." - By "this practice," the author is referring to the North American method of collecting duck feathers used during the Labrador voyages. This has to do with Labrador specifically, but doesn't tell us anything about why a large amount of feathers were able to be collected, just that the method contributed to the extinction of the Labrador duck.
"The early settlers of New England saved for such purposes the feathers and down from the thousands of wild-fowl which they killed, but as the population of people increased, the quantity of feathers furnished in this manner became insufficient, and the people sought a larger supply in the vast colonies of ducks and geese along the Labrador coast." - This sentence suggests that the Labrador voyages were put together to meet a growing demand for feathers. This implicitly tells us that the Labrador voyages were designed to collect a great deal of feathers, but this particular sentence doesn't tell us about how this was accomplished.
"The demand for feathers became so great in the New England colonies during the middle of the eighteenth century that vessels were sent to Labrador for the express purpose of securing the feathers and down of wild fowl." - Similarly to the last answer choice, this tells us that the Labrador feather voyages were put together to collect lots of feathers, but doesn't mention how this was done.
"As the ducks molt all their primary feathers at once in July or August and are then quite incapable of flight and the young birds are unable to fly until well grown, the hunters were able to surround the helpless birds, drive them together, and kill them with clubs." - This is the correct answer. The information the author provides about the molting cycle of Labrador ducks explains why the hunters were able to kill them so easily for their feathers, and thus collect a great deal of feathers.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
When you hear the phrase “man’s best friend,” you probably think of one animal, and one animal alone: the dog. But why is that? How did dogs come to earn the name “man’s best friend,” and why has the name stuck around since?
Many historians trace the relationship between man and dog back more than 30,000 years, to when wolves used to scavenge alongside humans. Other historians cite the point when dogs and people began living together, around 15,000 years ago, as the start of this friendship.
Literature from long ago also references the friendship between man and dog, most famously in Homer’s The Odyssey. However, it wasn’t until the 1700s when King Frederick of Prussia coined the term that dogs were formally given the position “best friend to man.” Frederick referred to his friendship with his dogs in a way that was unusual at the time. While pet dogs were common for those of his rank and stature, they were normally used for hunting and protecting, and it would be considered strange to speak of them as “friends.” Frederick, however, was so fond of his dogs that he had portraits of them painted, spoke often of their loyalty, and even requested that he be buried next to them when he was laid to rest.
It is this strange but enduring relationship with “man’s best friend” that has stood the test of time. Today, dogs are often thought of for their loyalty and companionship. Studies even suggest that a canine companion can increase one’s lifespan, lower cardiovascular disease, and improve mental health. Even if you don’t share Frederick’s opinion that companionship with a dog is the only way to be truly “free of cares,” there’s no arguing that dogs have earned the title “man’s best friend” over the thousands of years they have stood by man’s side.
Which of the following sentences provides the strongest support for the following statement?
“Though dogs have been companions to humans for thousands of years, the origin of the term ‘man’s best friend’ as we know it today developed far more recently.”
For this question, we’re looking for evidence that points us to the origin of the nickname/term “man’s best friend,” not the first instance of interaction between man and dog. So, while evidence of man’s relationship with dogs is given in the incorrect answer choices, only the correct answer gives us any indication about where the term came from.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
When you hear the phrase “man’s best friend,” you probably think of one animal, and one animal alone: the dog. But why is that? How did dogs come to earn the name “man’s best friend,” and why has the name stuck around since?
Many historians trace the relationship between man and dog back more than 30,000 years, to when wolves used to scavenge alongside humans. Other historians cite the point when dogs and people began living together, around 15,000 years ago, as the start of this friendship.
Literature from long ago also references the friendship between man and dog, most famously in Homer’s The Odyssey. However, it wasn’t until the 1700s when King Frederick of Prussia coined the term that dogs were formally given the position “best friend to man.” Frederick referred to his friendship with his dogs in a way that was unusual at the time. While pet dogs were common for those of his rank and stature, they were normally used for hunting and protecting, and it would be considered strange to speak of them as “friends.” Frederick, however, was so fond of his dogs that he had portraits of them painted, spoke often of their loyalty, and even requested that he be buried next to them when he was laid to rest.
It is this strange but enduring relationship with “man’s best friend” that has stood the test of time. Today, dogs are often thought of for their loyalty and companionship. Studies even suggest that a canine companion can increase one’s lifespan, lower cardiovascular disease, and improve mental health. Even if you don’t share Frederick’s opinion that companionship with a dog is the only way to be truly “free of cares,” there’s no arguing that dogs have earned the title “man’s best friend” over the thousands of years they have stood by man’s side.
According to the passage, which of the following is cited as the first known interaction of man and dog?
If we pay close attention to detail, the first interaction cited between man and dog is introduced at the start of paragraph two, when the author tells us that “Many historians trace the relationship between man and dog back more than 30,000 years, to when wolves used to scavenge alongside humans.” While there seems to be disagreement around when man and dog could formally be considered “friends,” the first interaction cited is clearly during this time more than 30,000 years ago.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.
The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor.
Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.
Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans), aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.
Which of the following provides the least convincing support for the following statement?
“While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.”
In this case, we’re looking for the statement that does *not* support the author’s conclusion that “While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.” The wrong answer choices, all provide support for why the other designation systems are limited in their application, and charisma is the currently accepted process. The correct choice, on the other hand, provides an example of a successful “recognizable” species - a different method from the one suggested by the statement in question.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.
The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor.
Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.
Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans), aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.
Which of the following is cited in the passage as an important use of the keystone species designation?
In the passage, the author cites that “While this \[keystone designation\] metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.” So the keystone designation is important because it helps environmentalists understand how to best allocate funding when attempting to help protect endangered species by understanding which species are most vital to their ecosystems. The designation doesn’t help identify endangered species… we’re looking at identifying flagship species among a pool of species that are all endangered! The keystone designation is also not a part of the charisma measurement, and there is no mention in the passage that the designation informs what types of marketing organizations use.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.
The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor.
Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.
Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans), aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.
Which of the following excerpts best supports the author’s main idea?
The author primarily uses this passage to assert that “charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.” The author does so by introducing the existing designation systems and addressing their limitations, and then closes by introducing the charisma designation system and explaining why it is now considered the most accurate process. The excerpt that ““Charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified” directly addresses that primary purpose, and shows that the charisma designation system is the common tool used to accurately identify potential flagship species.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Encouraging the participation of video games in children and teenagers is a dangerous practice. These video games are often violent and thus promote violence in everyday life. Such games have also been shown to encourage violence and anger problems in those already inclined toward violence. At an age at which it is important to foster cooperation among classmates and build friendships, the isolation that comes with excessive gaming makes students more likely to enter conflicts with other students and harms their ability to socialize.
Video games have also been shown to be addictive. This trait makes gaming all the more dangerous, as an exclusive focus on any one hobby can leave children without a well-rounded set of interests and skills. Those playing video games would benefit from other extracurriculars, such as arts or athletics. When children spend all their time playing video games, that leaves less time for more-productive tasks like joining a sport, learning to play an instrument, or picking up other more beneficial hobbies. Parents would be wise to discourage their children from playing video games and instead suggest they pick up a more constructive hobby.
Passage 2:
Video games are often (and unfairly) blamed for negatively impacting children, but in reality, they offer many benefits to those who choose “gaming” as a hobby. Studies show that children who play video games improve their motor skills, reasoning ability, and creative problem-solving when they do so. Additionally, evidence shows us that many find playing video games to be a way to socialize with friends and even build leadership skills, including how to delegate, work as a team, and prioritize tasks. Some have even linked these higher-order thinking skills to career success down the road.
People who would villainize gaming claim that violent games make kids more violent. However, there is little, if any, evidence to show any connection between actions performed in a simulated game and tendencies in real life. In fact, many report that they find playing such games to be stress-relieving, and say that these activities positively impact their mood.
While it is important to limit kids’ daily consumption of any hobby, video games can be a great way to encourage their creative problem solving, leadership, and other valuable life skills!
Which of the following pair of excerpts from Passages 1 & 2 best support the main idea of each author?
Here, we need a pair of excerpts that each support the main idea or claim of each argument. Passage 1 attempts to claim that video games are potentially harmful, and tries to convince parents that they should seek out other, more beneficial, hobbies for their children. This is summarized in the conclusion sentence of the passage: “Parents would be wise to discourage their children from playing video games and instead suggest they pick up a more constructive hobby.” Passage 2 makes the claim that video games can be beneficial as a hobby, as addressed in the closing sentence of the passage: “Video games can be a great way to encourage their creative problem solving, leadership, and other valuable life skills!” While our other answer choices are in the passages, they don’t completely address the primary purpose of the passage. For instance, “those playing video games would benefit from other extracurriculars, such as arts or athletics” is supported by the author of the passage, but doesn’t encompass why the passage was written.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
When you hear the word “pirate,” you likely think of names such as Blackbeard or Henry Morgan. However, there exists a vast and interesting history of lesser-known pirates who have also shaped the term as we know it, and this history is just as deserving of our attention.
For instance, in the fifteenth century, the pirate Pier Gerlofs Donia, better known as “Big Pier,” fought tirelessly against the Roman Empire and intimidated even the most fierce soldiers with the seven-foot long sword he wielded, known as the “Zweihander.” When his crew captured a suspected enemy ship, he was known to determine friend from foe by forcing them to say: “Butter, bread, and green cheese: if you can’t say that, you’re not a real Frisian!” in his native tongue, as this was often difficult for enemies to pronounce correctly. Enemies who were unable to do so were sentenced to their doom!
Seventeenth-century dutch pirate Laurens de Graaf is also an interesting story. While he is best known for his ship, the Tigre, and for evading capture and disappearing into mystery and myth, he was supposedly an interesting pirate to work for! Known as the “gentleman’s outlaw,” de Graff would travel the seas with an arrangement of violins and trumpets, which he would play for his crew to keep spirits high.
Samuel Bellamy’s life poses yet another interesting, though ultimately tragic, story. When treasure hunter Bellamy found it difficult to make a living, he turned to piracy. Bellamy was known as a just captain and even formed a democracy on his ship, earning the trust and respect of his men. Bellamy was also known as the wealthiest pirate ever, and in the short year or so that he roamed the seas, he acquired over $120 million in treasure. This wealth would be short-lived, however, as Bellamy and his ship sank to the bottom of the deep blue on their way back from the heist that would have allowed his entire crew to retire and live out the rest of their lives in peace.
It is true that many of the icons we see in today’s movies, novels, and costumes come from some of history’s most well-known pirates. Nevertheless, those interested in knowing the full history and culture of what we know as “piracy” today should seek out the stories behind some of the world’s lesser-known tyrants of the sea.
Which of the following is cited as direct support to the claim that “Bellamy was known as a just captain”?
While all answer choices are true statements that are included in the passage, only one addresses why Bellamy was considered a “just” or fair captain. In the passage, the author uses the fact that Bellamy “formed a democracy on his ship, earning the trust and respect of his men,” to directly support the claim that “Bellamy was known as a just captain.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
When you hear the word “pirate,” you likely think of names such as Blackbeard or Henry Morgan. However, there exists a vast and interesting history of lesser-known pirates who have also shaped the term as we know it, and this history is just as deserving of our attention.
For instance, in the fifteenth century, the pirate Pier Gerlofs Donia, better known as “Big Pier,” fought tirelessly against the Roman Empire and intimidated even the most fierce soldiers with the seven-foot long sword he wielded, known as the “Zweihander.” When his crew captured a suspected enemy ship, he was known to determine friend from foe by forcing them to say: “Butter, bread, and green cheese: if you can’t say that, you’re not a real Frisian!” in his native tongue, as this was often difficult for enemies to pronounce correctly. Enemies who were unable to do so were sentenced to their doom!
Seventeenth-century dutch pirate Laurens de Graaf is also an interesting story. While he is best known for his ship, the Tigre, and for evading capture and disappearing into mystery and myth, he was supposedly an interesting pirate to work for! Known as the “gentleman’s outlaw,” de Graff would travel the seas with an arrangement of violins and trumpets, which he would play for his crew to keep spirits high.
Samuel Bellamy’s life poses yet another interesting, though ultimately tragic, story. When treasure hunter Bellamy found it difficult to make a living, he turned to piracy. Bellamy was known as a just captain and even formed a democracy on his ship, earning the trust and respect of his men. Bellamy was also known as the wealthiest pirate ever, and in the short year or so that he roamed the seas, he acquired over $120 million in treasure. This wealth would be short-lived, however, as Bellamy and his ship sank to the bottom of the deep blue on their way back from the heist that would have allowed his entire crew to retire and live out the rest of their lives in peace.
It is true that many of the icons we see in today’s movies, novels, and costumes come from some of history’s most well-known pirates. Nevertheless, those interested in knowing the full history and culture of what we know as “piracy” today should seek out the stories behind some of the world’s lesser-known tyrants of the sea.
Which of the following is not cited as an interesting fact about a lesser-known pirate in the passage?
In this example, we can use the process of elimination to identify the facts that are included and thus, the one that isn’t. “One such pirate had an interest in playing musical instruments for his crew” refers to Laurens de Graaf and his trumpeting and violin playing for the crew. “Some pirates developed systems for making decisions aboard the ship” addresses the fact that Bellamy created a democracy on the ship in order to have a fair way to make decisions. “One pirate used pronunciation as a way to identify enemies” refers to Pier Gerlofs Donia and his habit of asking suspected enemies to recite his strange Frisian phrase. However, while “The wealthiest pirate ever known retired in peace after his biggest heist” might sound familiar… if we look back to the passage we can see that “Bellamy and his ship sank to the bottom of the deep blue on their way back from the heist that would have allowed his entire crew to retire and live out the rest of their lives in peace.” So, Bellamy certainly did not retire in peace… he perished in the bottom of the deep blue!
Compare your answer with the correct one above
As technology continues to advance, relics of much earlier innovations remain in the terms we use to describe today’s tech. These terms, often referred to as “technological fossil words,” have outlived their meaning, but are still used in conversation today.
Perhaps the most well-known example of a technological fossil word is the term “DJ” or “Disc Jockey.” The term originated in a time when a DJ actually “jockeyed,” the machine playing a disc or record. Nowadays, a Disc Jockey is almost never seen with an actual disc, but the name lives on!
Technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use. When operators of the original phone that coined most of the terms we use today made a call, they would “dial” by turning an actual dial of rotating numbers. When they would “hang up,” they would physically hang the phone up on the wall, at which point the phone's pressure on the latch it hung on would end the call. Even the terms phone line and cell phone refer to aspects of telephone use that no longer apply today.
One of the most interesting and lesser-known of these technological fossil words is the term “soap opera.” Today, this term refers broadly to dramatic television programs. However, the history of the term comes from the radio dramas once sponsored by soap companies to entice housewives listening in during the day to purchase their products.
From typing messages to “pen pals,” to “filming” a video, technological fossil words give us a glimpse into the history behind the tech we use today!
Which of the following excerpts contributes the least toward informing the reader about what a “technological fossil word” refers to?
Here, we can eliminate any answer choice that helps explain the history behind the term “technological fossil word.” The answer choices that explain the history behind the terms DJ, hang up, and soap opera all support the reader’s understanding of the meaning. However, broadly saying that “technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use,” does not indicate to the reader how the term “technological fossil word” is relevant to the context of phone use, or the meaning of the term as a whole.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
School-age children are filled with curiosity and seek to discover new and exciting things every day! So, it is silly to assume that a child would not appreciate the faraway places and times of classics by Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Shakespeare. Regardless of the child’s age, if he or she can break down the structure of Shakespeare’s sonnets or the satire of Dickens’s episodics, there is no reason such a child should have to wait until the later part of his or her schooling to enjoy such works. In fact, limiting younger children to writing consisting only of relatable elementary- and middle-school topics such as going to school, overcoming bullying, and growing up only acts to stifle the curiosity that could otherwise be strengthened by the wonder of classic literature.
Passage 2:
There is no simpler way to drive children away from reading than to fill their arms and their reading lists with dense, boring novels full of language and topics they find unrelatable and difficult to understand. Allow a child to find his love for reading through books that he can relate to and he will hold onto that appreciation of reading for a lifetime. Force him to know only difficult constructions and dated language when he reads, and you’ll be sure to chase him away from the hobby entirely! By allowing children to read about what they find interesting, or what they can relate to, whether it’s the common challenges faced making friends in school or the wonder of talking animals and superheroes, you build the foundation for a love of reading that will eventually make its way to the classic literature adult readers have come to embrace.
Which of the following is not cited by the authors as something school-aged children find relatable?
While all of these answer choices could be things children might enjoy, the author of Passage 1 uses the argument that children should not be limited to only what they might find relatable because they might also enjoy the adventures of faraway places and times. So, while going to school, overcoming bullying, and making friends are all listed as relatable topics for children by at least one of the two authors, going on adventures is not specifically cited as a relatable topic.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from Pinocchio by Carl Collodi (1883)
There was once upon a time a piece of wood in the shop of an old carpenter named Master Antonio. Everybody, however, called him Master Cherry, on account of the end of his nose, which was always as red and polished as a ripe cherry.
No sooner had Master Cherry set eyes on the piece of wood than his face beamed with delight, and, rubbing his hands together with satisfaction, he said softly to himself:
"This wood has come at the right moment; it will just do to make the leg of a little table."
He immediately took a sharp axe with which to remove the bark and the rough surface, but just as he was going to give the first stroke he heard a very small voice say imploringly, "Do not strike me so hard!"
He turned his terrified eyes all around the room to try and discover where the little voice could possibly have come from, but he saw nobody! He looked under the bench—nobody; he looked into a cupboard that was always shut—nobody; he looked into a basket of shavings and sawdust—nobody; he even opened the door of the shop and gave a glance into the street—and still nobody. Who, then, could it be?
"I see how it is," he said, laughing and scratching his wig, "evidently that little voice was all my imagination. Let us set to work again."
And, taking up the axe, he struck a tremendous blow on the piece of wood.
"Oh! oh! you have hurt me!" cried the same little voice dolefully.
This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:
"But where on earth can that little voice have come from that said 'Oh! oh!'? Is it possible that this piece of wood can have learned to cry and to lament like a child? I cannot believe it. This piece of wood is nothing but a log for fuel like all the others, and thrown on the fire it would about suffice to boil a saucepan of beans. How then? Can anyone be hidden inside it? If anyone is hidden inside, so much the worse for him. I will settle him at once."
So saying, he seized the poor piece of wood and commenced beating it without mercy against the walls of the room.
Then he stopped to listen if he could hear any little voice lamenting. He waited two minutes—nothing; five minutes—nothing; ten minutes—still nothing!
"I see how it is," he then said, forcing himself to laugh, and pushing up his wig; "evidently the little voice that said 'Oh! oh!' was all my imagination! Let us set to work again."
Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"
This time poor Master Cherry fell down as if he had been struck by lightning. When he at last opened his eyes he found himself seated on the floor.
His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright.
Why was Master Cherry scared?
There are two main parts of the passage that tells us why Master Cherry was scared:
"This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:"
and
"His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright."
If we look at the text around these parts of the passage, they all come after Master Cherry realizes that the wood is talking; thus, the correct answer is that Master Cherry was scared because the wood was talking.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from Pinocchio by Carl Collodi (1883)
There was once upon a time a piece of wood in the shop of an old carpenter named Master Antonio. Everybody, however, called him Master Cherry, on account of the end of his nose, which was always as red and polished as a ripe cherry.
No sooner had Master Cherry set eyes on the piece of wood than his face beamed with delight, and, rubbing his hands together with satisfaction, he said softly to himself:
"This wood has come at the right moment; it will just do to make the leg of a little table."
He immediately took a sharp axe with which to remove the bark and the rough surface, but just as he was going to give the first stroke he heard a very small voice say imploringly, "Do not strike me so hard!"
He turned his terrified eyes all around the room to try and discover where the little voice could possibly have come from, but he saw nobody! He looked under the bench—nobody; he looked into a cupboard that was always shut—nobody; he looked into a basket of shavings and sawdust—nobody; he even opened the door of the shop and gave a glance into the street—and still nobody. Who, then, could it be?
"I see how it is," he said, laughing and scratching his wig, "evidently that little voice was all my imagination. Let us set to work again."
And, taking up the axe, he struck a tremendous blow on the piece of wood.
"Oh! oh! you have hurt me!" cried the same little voice dolefully.
This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:
"But where on earth can that little voice have come from that said 'Oh! oh!'? Is it possible that this piece of wood can have learned to cry and to lament like a child? I cannot believe it. This piece of wood is nothing but a log for fuel like all the others, and thrown on the fire it would about suffice to boil a saucepan of beans. How then? Can anyone be hidden inside it? If anyone is hidden inside, so much the worse for him. I will settle him at once."
So saying, he seized the poor piece of wood and commenced beating it without mercy against the walls of the room.
Then he stopped to listen if he could hear any little voice lamenting. He waited two minutes—nothing; five minutes—nothing; ten minutes—still nothing!
"I see how it is," he then said, forcing himself to laugh, and pushing up his wig; "evidently the little voice that said 'Oh! oh!' was all my imagination! Let us set to work again."
Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"
This time poor Master Cherry fell down as if he had been struck by lightning. When he at last opened his eyes he found himself seated on the floor.
His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright.
What was Master Cherry doing that was tickling the piece of wood?
The answer to this question is a detail from the text. This answer can be found in the text, near the end of the passage.
"Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"'
"Polishing the wood" is the correct answer.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from “When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer” in Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman (1865; 1900)
When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Which of the following excerpts serves as the strongest evidence that the astronomer is using math to study the stars?
To answer this question correctly, you need to pick out the answer choice that best demonstrates that the astronomer is using math in his studies. Scanning over the first few lines of the poem, a few words might stick out to you as potentially having to do with math: "columns" (Line 2) might have to do with math; "charts and diagrams" (Line 3) could also have to do with math, but they could also have to do with other subjects. After all, diagrams and charts refer to general explanatory images that may or may not have to do with math. You could draw a chart of stars' locations in the night sky or a diagram of how an engine works that each would have little to do with math. The best evidence that the astronomer is specifically using math that is mentioned in the answer choices is "to add, divide, and measure them” (Line 3). Adding and dividing are actions that are very specifically related to math, as they're mathematical operations. The narrator is being shown things to add, divide, and measure in the context of interacting with the astronomer, and this functions as very good evidence that the astronomer is using math to study the stars.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from “Introduced Species That Have Become Pests” in Our Vanishing Wild Life, Its Extermination and Protection by William Temple Hornaday (1913)
The man who successfully introduces into a new habitat any species of living thing assumes a very grave responsibility. Every introduced species is doubtful gravel until panned out. The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild animals and plants would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality. The most aggravating feature of these follies in transplantation is that never yet have they been made severely punishable. We are just as careless and easygoing on this point as we were about the government of Yellowstone Park in the days when Howell and other poachers destroyed our first national bison herd. Even though Howell was caught red-handed, skinning seven Park bison cows, he could not be punished for it, because there was no penalty prescribed by any law. Today, there is a way in which any revengeful person could inflict enormous damage on the entire South, at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money, yet go absolutely unpunished!
The gypsy moth is a case in point. This winged calamity was imported near Boston by a French entomologist, Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, in 1868 or 69. The scientist did not purposely set the pest free. He was endeavoring with live specimens to find a moth that would produce a cocoon of commercial value to America, and a sudden gust of wind blew his living and breeding specimens of the gypsy moth out of his study through an open window. The moth itself is not bad to look at, but its larvae is a great, overgrown brute with an appetite like a hog. Immediately Mr. Trouvelot sought to recover his specimens. When he failed to find them all, he notified the State authorities of the accident. Every effort was made to recover all the specimens, but enough escaped to produce progeny that soon became a scourge to the trees of Massachusetts. The method of the big, nasty-looking mottled-brown caterpillar was very simple. It devoured the entire foliage of every tree that grew in its sphere of influence.
The gypsy moth spread with alarming rapidity and persistence. In time, the state of Massachusetts was forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire. It was awful! Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!
The spread of this pest has been slowed, but the gypsy moth never will be wholly stamped out. Today it exists in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and it is due to reach New York at an early date. It is steadily spreading in three directions from Boston, its original point of departure, and when it strikes the State of New York, we, too, will begin to pay dearly for the Trouvelot experiment.
In which of the following sentences does the author offer the strongest evidence that combating invasive species can be very expensive?
The strongest evidence about the expensive nature fighting invasive species will need to in some way implicate or directly mention the cost of fighting the species. Let's consider each answer choice:
"The spread of this pest has been slowed, but the gypsy moth never will be wholly stamped out." - This sentence has nothing to do with the cost of fighting the gypsy moth's advancement; it just states that it is difficult to keep from advancing further.
"In time, the state of Massachusetts was forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire." - This sentence tells us the methods that Massachusetts has used to combat the gypsy moth, but it doesn't tell us anything about how expensive these methods are to use.
"The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild animals and plants would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality." - Now we're getting somewhere: this sentence considers a hypothetical scenario that estimates the total amount of money spent fighting invasive species the world over. The author says that it would be "enough to purchase a principality." That's a lot of money! While this statement is grand it its claim, it's also an estimate and hypothetical. It's the author's claim, and it might not relate to the actual state of things. There might be better evidence in the passage, so let's look at the remaining answer choices.
"Today, there is a way in which any revengeful person could inflict enormous damage on the entire South, at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money, yet go absolutely unpunished!" - This sentence also uses a hypothetical scenario to play up the cost involved in fighting an invasive species. The author states that by introducing a nonnative, destructive organism to the environment of the Southern states, could "at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money." Again, this is conjecture, and while it's a reasonable claim, it doesn't have any actual real-world data supporting it.
"Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!" - This is the correct answer. In this sentence, the author provides a distinct amount of money that the U.S. government and New England states have spent so far fighting the spread of the gypsy moth. Keep in mind that over seven and a half million dollars is a lot of money now, but it was worth even more in 1912 due to inflation since then. At any rate, we can tell that the author considers it to be a large sum because of the way he ends the sentence with an exclamation point to convey that this information is somehow shocking or exorbitant. This sentence provides the best evidence that fighting invasive species is expensive because it provides the actual total cost of fighting one invasive species. The other answer choices are based in the author's claims and conjectures, but this one is based in a quantitative fact.
Compare your answer with the correct one above