Card 0 of 84
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.
Based on the text, what does "petrified" mean?
To answer this question, we can look at context clues from the surrounding sentences where the word "petrified" is located:
"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:"
Based on these sentences from the passages, we can infer that "petrified" means to be scared.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)
He was a very silent man by custom. All day he hung round the cove or upon the cliffs with a brass telescope; all evening he sat in a corner of the parlor next the fire and drank rum and water very strong. Mostly he would not speak when spoken to, only look up sudden and fierce and blow through his nose like a fog-horn; and we and the people who came about our house soon learned to let him be. Every day when he came back from his stroll he would ask if any seafaring men had gone by along the road. At first we thought it was the want of company of his own kind that made him ask this question, but at last we began to see he was desirous to avoid them. When a seaman did put up at the Admiral Benbow (as now and then some did, making by the coast road for Bristol) he would look in at him through the curtained door before he entered the parlor; and he was always sure to be as silent as a mouse when any such was present. For me, at least, there was no secret about the matter, for I was, in a way, a sharer in his alarms. He had taken me aside one day and promised me a silver fourpenny on the first of every month if I would only keep my "weather-eye open for a seafaring man with one leg" and let him know the moment he appeared. Often enough when the first of the month came round and I applied to him for my wage, he would only blow through his nose at me and stare me down, but before the week was out he was sure to think better of it, bring me my four-penny piece, and repeat his orders to look out for "the seafaring man with one leg.”
How that personage haunted my dreams, I need scarcely tell you. I would see him in a thousand forms, and with a thousand diabolical expressions. Now the leg would be cut off at the knee, now at the hip; now he was a monstrous kind of a creature who had never had but the one leg, and that in the middle of his body. To see him leap and run and pursue me over hedge and ditch was the worst of nightmares. And altogether I paid pretty dear for my monthly fourpenny piece, in the shape of these abominable fancies.
But though I was so terrified by the idea of the seafaring man with one leg, I was far less afraid of the captain himself than anybody else who knew him. There were nights when he would sometimes sit and sing his wicked, old, wild sea-songs, minding nobody; but sometimes he would call for glasses round and force all the trembling company to listen to his stories or bear a chorus to his singing. His stories were what frightened people worst of all. Dreadful stories they were—about hanging, and walking the plank, and storms at sea, and the Dry Tortugas, and wild deeds and places on the Spanish Main. By his own account he must have lived his life among some of the wickedest men upon the sea, and the language in which he told these stories shocked our plain country people almost as much as the crimes that he described. My father was always saying the inn would be ruined, for people would soon cease coming there to be tyrannized over and put down, and sent shivering to their beds; but I really believe his presence did us good. People were frightened at the time, but on looking back they rather liked it; it was a fine excitement in a quiet country life, and there was even a party of the younger men who pretended to admire him, calling him a "true sea-dog" and a "real old salt" and such like names, and saying there was the sort of man that made England terrible at sea.
The man in the passage asks the writer if he will “keep \[his\] ‘weather-eye open for a seafaring man with one leg.’” Which of the following most accurately restates the meaning of “keep his weather eye open for” in this phrase?
To “keep a weather-eye open” for something means to look out carefully for that thing or person, or in other words, to be on the watch for him, her, or it. “Pay attention to the weather for” doesn’t make sense in the passage. “Do a favor for” and “be suspicious of” might seem like potentially correct answers, but since the man with the wooden leg isn’t actually a character in the same location as the man described in the passage and the narrator, neither of these answer choices make sense. If you thought that a “weather-eye” was a type of window, you may have chosen “leave a window open for,” but again, this makes no sense in the context of the passage.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from "The Cask of Amontillado" by Edgar Allan Poe (1846)
The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge. You, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that I gave utterance to a threat. At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitively settled — but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk. I must not only punish but punish with impunity1. A wrong is unredressed2 when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong.
It must be understood that neither by word nor deed had I given Fortunato cause to doubt my good will. I continued, as was my wont, to smile in his face, and he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of his immolation3.
He had a weak point — this Fortunato — although in other regards he was a man to be respected and even feared. He prided himself upon his connoisseurship in wine. Few Italians have the true virtuoso spirit. For the most part their enthusiasm is adopted to suit the time and opportunity, to practice imposture upon the British and Austrian millionaires. In painting and gemmary, Fortunato, like his countrymen, was a quack, but in the matter of old wines he was sincere. In this respect I did not differ from him materially; — I was skillful in the Italian vintages myself, and bought largely whenever I could.
It was about dusk, one evening during the supreme madness of the carnival season, that I encountered my friend. He accosted me with excessive warmth, for he had been drinking much. The man wore motley. He had on a tight-fitting parti-striped dress, and his head was surmounted by the conical cap and bells. I was so pleased to see him that I thought I should never have done wringing his hand.
I said to him — “My dear Fortunato, you are luckily met. How remarkably well you are looking today. But I have received a pipe of what passes for Amontillado, and I have my doubts.”
“How?” said he. “Amontillado? A pipe? Impossible! And in the middle of the carnival!”
“I have my doubts,” I replied; “and I was silly enough to pay the full Amontillado price without consulting you in the matter. You were not to be found, and I was fearful of losing a bargain.”
“Amontillado!”
“I have my doubts.”
“Amontillado!”
“And I must satisfy them.”
“Amontillado!”
“As you are engaged, I am on my way to Luchresi. If any one has a critical turn it is he. He will tell me ——”
“Luchresi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry4.”
“And yet some fools will have it that his taste is a match for your own.”
“Come, let us go.”
“Whither?”
“To your vaults.”
1. "Impunity," n. immunity from punishment
2. The verb "redress," not directly used in the passage, means to amend or rectify a wrong
3. "Immolation," n. utter destruction, esp. that of a sacrificial victim by being burned
4. "Sherry," n. a type of fortified wine
Which of the following best describes the effect of the author's use of the word "immolation" at the end of the second paragraph?
Let's consider where the word "immolation" appears in the passage. It shows up at the end of the second paragraph, after the narrator has declared to the reader that he is seeking revenge against Fortunato, but doesn't want Fortunato to realize this before he can take his revenge.
"It must be understood that neither by word nor deed had I given Fortunato cause to doubt my good will. I continued, as was my wont, to smile in his face, and he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of his immolation."
The footnotes tell us that "immolation" means utter destruction, esp. that of a sacrificial victim by being burned. This is a very strong word, so we can ignore the answer choice that claims it's a weak one. It doesn't tell us anything about how Fortunato insulted the narrator and prompted him to seek revenge, nor does it suggest that the two characters are actually working together to seek revenge against a third character. It has nothing to do with amontillado, so it's not foreshadowing the introduction of amontillado as a specific plot point. The best answer is "It adds suspense to the story because it suggests that the narrator might want to hurt or kill Fortunato for his insult."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame (1908)
'Do you mean to tell me,' shouted the Rat, thumping with his little fist upon the table, 'that you've heard nothing about the Stoats and Weasels?’
‘What, the Wild Wooders?' cried Toad, trembling in every limb. 'No, not a word! What have they been doing?’
'—And how they've been and taken Toad Hall?' continued the Rat.
Toad leaned his elbows on the table, and his chin on his paws; and a large tear welled up in each of his eyes, overflowed and splashed on the table, plop! plop!
'The Wild Wooders have been living in Toad Hall ever since you—got—into that—that—trouble of yours,' continued the Rat; 'and going on simply anyhow! Lying in bed half the day, and breakfast at all hours, and the place in such a mess (I'm told) it's not fit to be seen! Eating your grub, and drinking your drink, and making bad jokes about you, and singing vulgar songs, about—well, about prisons and magistrates, and policemen; horrid personal songs, with no humor in them. And they're telling the tradespeople and everybody that they've come to stay for good.’
. . .
Such a tremendous noise was going on in the banqueting-hall that there was little danger of their being overheard. The Badger said, 'Now, boys, all together!' and the four of them put their shoulders to the trap-door and heaved it back. Hoisting each other up, they found themselves standing in the pantry, with only a door between them and the banqueting-hall, where their unconscious enemies were carousing.
The noise, as they emerged from the passage, was simply deafening. At last, as the cheering and hammering slowly subsided, a voice could be made out saying, 'Well, I do not propose to detain you much longer'—(great applause)—'but before I resume my seat'—(renewed cheering)—'I should like to say one word about our kind host, Mr. Toad. We all know Toad!'—(great laughter)—'GOOD Toad, MODEST Toad, HONEST Toad!' (shrieks of merriment).
'Only just let me get at him!' muttered Toad, grinding his teeth.
'Hold hard a minute!' said the Badger, restraining him with difficulty. 'Get ready, all of you!'
'—Let me sing you a little song,' went on the voice, 'which I have composed on the subject of Toad'—(prolonged applause).
The Badger drew himself up, took a firm grip of his stick with both paws, glanced round at his comrades, and cried—
'The hour is come! Follow me!’
And flung the door open wide.
My!
What a squealing and a squeaking and a screeching filled the air!
Well might the terrified weasels dive under the tables and spring madly up at the windows! Well might the ferrets rush wildly for the fireplace and get hopelessly jammed in the chimney! Well might tables and chairs be upset, and glass and china be sent crashing on the floor, in the panic of that terrible moment when the four Heroes strode wrathfully into the room! The mighty Badger, his whiskers bristling, his great cudgel whistling through the air; Mole, black and grim, brandishing his stick and shouting his awful war-cry, 'A Mole! A Mole!' Rat; desperate and determined, his belt bulging with weapons of every age and every variety; Toad, frenzied with excitement and injured pride, swollen to twice his ordinary size, leaping into the air and emitting Toad-whoops that chilled them to the marrow! He went straight for the Chief Weasel. They were but four in all, but to the panic-stricken weasels the hall seemed full of monstrous animals, grey, black, brown and yellow, whooping and flourishing enormous cudgels; and they broke and fled with squeals of terror and dismay, this way and that, through the windows, up the chimney, anywhere to get out of reach of those terrible sticks.
The affair was soon over. Up and down, the whole length of the hall, strode the four Friends, whacking with their sticks at every head that showed itself; and in five minutes the room was cleared. Through the broken windows the shrieks of terrified weasels escaping across the lawn were borne faintly to their ears; on the floor lay prostrate some dozen or so of the enemy, on whom the Mole was busily engaged in fitting handcuffs. The Badger, resting from his labors, leant on his stick and wiped his honest brow.
The author’s repetition of the phrase “Well might” at the beginning of three adjacent sentences in a row helps add __________ to the story.
The author’s repetition of “Well might” at the start of three sentences that appear one after another slows down the story and focuses on a single moment. This doesn’t add humor or confusion to the story, and it certainly doesn’t make the tone casual or conversational: if anything, it makes the tone formal and poetic. Suspense isn’t added because we are being told exactly what is going on when this description appears, and there are no surprises to what we expect. The best answer is that the repetition adds “dramatic and poetic impact.” It adds a dramatic pause that allows the author to describe the moment in different ways, and the repetition also creates a poetic effect that the audience can notice.
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.
The author’s use of the word “moist” in line 7 is notable because unlike other words in the poem, “moist” __________.
This question asks us to take a look at one specific word in the poem and think about what distinguishes it from the poem's other words. First of all, let's consider what "moist" means: damp or slightly wet. What might you describe as moist? Here are a few examples: a damp washcloth, a sponge that has been used with water, a dense type of cake—and the air, if it's really humid. How does "moist" set itself apart from the rest of the words in the passage? A quick skim of the poem reveals that none of its other words rhyme with "moist," so we can ignore the answer choice "rhymes with another word in the poem." The word can be used to describe natural things (e.g. air) or man-made things (e.g. cake, a sponge), so "is usually used to discuss man-made things instead of nature" isn't correct either. While you could potentially be uncomfortable in "moist" air, the narrator doesn't seem to be. The poem doesn't give us any clues that he or she is uncomfortable outside. Thus, "has to do with discomfort and boredom" isn't the correct answer. This leaves us with "has a meaning that is completely abstract" and "strongly evokes a physical sensation." To answer the question correctly, you have to understand what is meant by "abstract." "Abstract" is the opposite of "concrete"—whereas concrete things are existing things that you can see and touch, abstract things are ideas. "Moist" has to do with a concrete thing, water, so it's not "abstract" in comparison to the rest of the poem's words. The correct answer is that "moist" "strongly evokes a physical sensation." The idea of dampness has to do with the sense of touch. The earlier parts of the poem all have to do with abstract ideas regarding math and astronomy. As a result, the poet doesn't use very many sensory words at all. "Moist" sticks out in comparison to the rest of the poem because it's one of the few times he uses a sensory word.
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.
The author starts each of the first four lines of the poem with “when.” Which of the following effects does this have?
Let's consider the lines of the poem to which this question is referring:
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 . . .
What's going on here? The narrator is telling us how he interacted with an astronomer. What do you notice about the poet's use of "when"? This part of the poem leaves you asking "What happened after you 'heard the learn'd astronomer'?" Altogether, these lines form an incomplete sentence, leaving the reader waiting to hear what happened "when \[the narrator\] heard the learn'd astronomer." All of the lines are also a bit similar in content, and the repeated use of "when" brings attention to this.
The lines aren't talking about very different things, and the repetition of when doesn't suggest that the narrator would rather listen to the astronomer than look at the stars. It doesn't with certainty tell us that the narrator listened to the astronomer on four different occasions; it seems to be just one occasion during which all of the first four lines' events took place. Finally, the repetition of "when" doesn't mean that the astronomer's lecture necessarily has to do with time. The correct answer is that the repeated use of "when" "makes the lines seem similar and leaves the reader waiting for the narrator’s sentence to be completed."
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.
Which of the following best paraphrases the underlined sentence, “Every introduced species is doubtful gravel until panned out”?
Here, the author is using figurative language to describe introduced species. He metaphorically calls them “doubtful gravel until \[they are\] panned out.” Because he’s not speaking literally, this sentence has nothing to do with the ground or gravel itself, so we can eliminate the answer choices “Species that live underground should be carefully examined before being moved into new environments” and “Species that live in gravel are usually harmful when placed in new environments.”
What is the author getting at with his metaphor? Panning rocks and dirt allows miners to separate out valuable minerals from other matter. Think of miners “panning for gold”—it’s the same principle, except here, the author is speaking of it as applying to gravel. By calling the gravel “doubtful,” the author is expressing that you don’t know what you’re going to get with it before you “pan it out” and see if there is anything valuable in it. Applying this thinking to invasive species, the author is therefore saying that “one can’t tell whether an introduced species will be helpful or harmful until it is actually introduced.”
If you didn’t know what panning gravel was, you could still solve this question by narrowing down your answer choices. For instance, nowhere in the passage are the beneficial effects of introduced species discussed, though the author discusses this in a previous chapter of his book. Because they’re not mentioned in the passage, we can discard the answer choice “An invasive species can cause beneficial effects to its new environment as well as harmful ones.” This is definitely not what the indicated sentence is saying; if we replaced the sentence with this answer choice, the logic of the paragraph wouldn’t make any sense.
As for the remaining answer choice, “One should never move a species from its natural environment into a new environment for fear of the consequences,” it cannot be correct because in the sentence before the one on which this question focuses, the author writes, “The man who successfully transplants or ‘introduces' into a new habitat any persistent species of living thing assumes a very grave responsibility.” Note that he doesn’t say that this should never be done; he just implies that it could go very badly. It wouldn’t make much sense if in the next sentence, the author said this should never be done. It seems more logical that he would have led with that statement, it being the stronger of the two.
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.
Which of the following is one of the effects of the author's use of the phrase "skinned alive" in the first paragraph?
Consider the entire sentence:
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
The phrase "skinned alive" is certainly an attention-getting, dramatic choice of words to use to describe the bark being removed from a tree. While it describes removing the tree's bark, it doesn't suggest that removing it was painless for the tree: it conveys the bark removal in a way that makes it appear as if it were very painful for the tree. The author is certainly not biased in favor of anyone who wants to cut Sequoia trees down, and the phrase does not suggest that the tree had been felled before its bark was removed. The phrase employs vivid and creative word choice, but it doesn't encourage us to think that the author literally thinks Sequoia trees are sentient. While the author uses a lot of personification, he does this to convince people not to cut the trees down and never actually suggests that he thinks Sequoia trees are thinking beings. The correct answer is that the author's word choice here "introduces the comparison between great trees and great men that is developed later in the sentence and paragraph." He mentions George Washington twice in the paragraph in analogies with Sequoia trees, and this phrase's personification is the start of that comparison.
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.
What does the author mean by the phrase "to 'kill the goose that lays the golden eggs,'" underlined in the third paragraph?
Let's consider the sentence in which the author uses this phrase:
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.”
The author has placed this phrase in quotation marks to call attention to the fact that he is using figurative language. In fact, he's alluding to one of Aesop's fables, a story about a farmer who obtains a goose that lays golden eggs. For a while, the farmer sells the golden eggs and obtains a steady income by doing so, but eventually, he gets greedy and kills the goose, imagining that it contains a large amount of gold inside it. He doesn't find any such gold, and is thus deprived of his steady income.
How does this relate to the passage? The author is saying that the Icelandic method of collecting down from ducks does not "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs." Instead of hunting a species duck to extinction like the Labrador feather voyages did, the Icelandic method protects the ducks. That is, it does not ruin a renewable resource based on greed for a one-time profit. This is the correct answer: by "to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs", the author means "to ruin a renewable resource by becoming greedy."
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 Graaf 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.
In the context of paragraph three, “evading” most nearly means
Here, from the context of the rest of the sentence, it is clear that de Graaf was able to keep himself from being captured and disappear into the unknown. This answer only aligns with avoiding. While invading sounds similar, the meaning is completely different, and not at all what we are looking for. De Graaf was also not confronting or embracing capture, as he was able to avoid it and disappear to live out the rest of his life undetected. It also doesn’t quite make sense to say he was exclaiming/proclaiming capture… in fact he was secretive enough that he was able to avoid it entirely!
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 Graaf 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.
In the context of paragraph four, “just” most nearly means
Using the context of the sentence, we can see that Bellamy treated his crew in a fair manner, as he allowed them to be a part of the decision-making! While several of our wrong answers align with other meanings for the word “just,” none of them fit our context. The author definitely isn’t trying to call Bellamy “pure” or “lawful,” - he was a pirate after all! Additionally, while “precise” (exact) and “only” could be used in place of “just” for other contexts, these words do not at all fit the meaning the author intends.
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 Graaf 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.
In the context of paragraph two, the phrase “native tongue” most likely refers to a country’s
Notice that later in the sentence it is said that enemies wouldn’t be able to pronounce the previous phrase correctly. This demonstrates that “native tongue” is about the way that people speak, and the only choice that deals with manner of speech is “language.”
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 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!
In the context of the first paragraph of passage one, “foster” most nearly means
Using context, we can see that in the sentence, the author is citing the importance of cooperation and friendship for children. Thus, foster is used here to mean encourage such cooperation. While parent could be seen as an alternate meaning to foster, it does not fit this particular context. Cooperate is relevant to the sentence, but it would make no sense to take away the word foster and replace it with cooperate, as it does not fit the contextual meaning of the word. Avoid and diminish are both in contrast to the context and meaning of the sentence, as the author is clearly not trying to say it is important to avoid or take away from cooperation and friendship. Thus, we are left with answer choice "encourage".
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 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!
In the context of passage two paragraph two, “villainize” most nearly means
In the context of passage two paragraph two, the author is referring to people who would speak about video games as though they are evil or negative. This aligns perfectly with answer choice "speak ill of". The root of the word, villain, can help provide us with some context, as the individuals the author is referring to are basically making video games out to be the villain. Keep in mind, this is different from “act in an evil way towards,” as the other is not saying that such people are evil *to* video games, rather that they consider the games themselves negative or villainous. Though these individuals might be inclined to avoid video games, the word does not fit this particular context, as we’re looking for a term that matches one who would speak negatively about video games. This also leaves an answer like “support” in complete contrast to what we are looking for. Finally, such people are not looking to “injure” video games (...that doesn’t make much sense!) but rather, make them out to be evil/the villain.
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 its “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.
In the context of the passage, the word “fauna” in paragraph one most nearly means
Here, the paragraph speaks about the role of flagship species in the conservation of animals. Thus, using context, we can conclude that the word “fauna” must mean animal. While the paragraph as a whole speaks about conservation and ends with the phrase “as a whole,” it would not make sense to take out the word “fauna” and replace it with any of the options other than "animal".
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 its “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.
The author of the passage uses the word “yardstick” in paragraph four in order to
Here, yardstick is used, not to say that we *physically* measure the animals, but to show us that the method expressed in the paragraph - charisma - is the commonly accepted standard. While many of the other answer options are accomplished within the paragraph, they don’t address why the specific term “yardstick” was used. Here, we use the term to show that charisma has been deemed the currently accepted method quality used to identify potential flagship species today.
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 its “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.
The author of the passage uses the word “understandably” in paragraph four in order to
In this question, it’s important to note that while the author concedes (admits) that there are some reasonable complaints about the system, the author continues on to tell readers that it is still “commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.” So, the author is noting that the method isn’t flawless (pointing out that there are drawbacks), but is still the best method currently available.
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!
In the context of the passage, “relics” most nearly means
A “relic” is commonly used to mean evidence belonging to or surviving from an earlier period. However, if you weren’t familiar with that term, you can use context here to understand this meaning as well. Technology advances, but we are left with ___ of earlier versions in these terms. Since the terms reference or address those earlier versions, it only makes sense to say that we are left with evidence of earlier versions. Our wrong answer options are illogical in meaning, and often repeat the same or similar meanings across answers.
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!
In the context of the passage, “jockeyed” most nearly means
If you’ve heard the term “jockey” before, you might think of a man or woman riding or racing a horse. Here, however, a DJ isn’t riding or racing a machine! - the term instead refers to someone who operates a disc machine. Thus,only "operated" addresses the context that we’re looking for.
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!
In the context of the passage, “entice” most nearly means
If, according to the passage, soap companies were sponsoring the dramatic radio shows known as “soap operas” to gain popularity with housewives in days past, these soap companies were trying to encourage housewives to purchase their goods - not discourage or force them too. Additionally, while terms like “buy” and “spend” sound on topic to the sentence, they would be completely illogical to replace the word entice with, and can be eliminated. "encourage" is the only answer that maintains the meaning intended in this passage.
Compare your answer with the correct one above