Card 0 of 48
Adapted from White Fang by Jack London (1906)
Dark spruce forest frowned on either side the frozen waterway. The trees had been stripped by a recent wind of their white covering of frost, and they seemed to lean toward each other, black and ominous, in the fading light. A vast silence reigned over the land. The land itself was a desolation, lifeless, without movement, so lone and cold that the spirit of it was not even that of sadness. There was a hint in it of laughter, but of a laughter more terrible than any sadness -- a laughter that was mirthless as the smile of the Sphinx, a laughter cold as the frost and partaking of the grimness of infallibility. It was the masterful and incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort of life. It was the Wild, the savage, frozen-hearted Northland Wild.
But there was life, abroad in the land and defiant. Down the frozen waterway toiled a string of wolfish dogs. Their bristly fur was rimed with frost. Their breath froze in the air as it left their mouths, spouting forth in spumes of vapor that settled upon the hair of their bodies and formed into crystals of frost. Leather harness was on the dogs, and leather traces attached them to a sled which dragged along behind. On the sled, securely lashed, was a long and narrow oblong box. There were other things on the sled -- blankets, an axe, and a coffee-pot and frying-pan; but prominent, occupying most of the space, was the long and narrow oblong box.
In advance of the dogs, on wide snowshoes, toiled a man. At the rear of the sled toiled a second man. On the sled, in the box, lay a third man whose toil was over, -- a man whom the Wild had conquered and beaten down until he would never move nor struggle again.
But at front and rear, unawed and indomitable, toiled the two men who were not yet dead. Their bodies were covered with fur and soft-tanned leather. Eyelashes and cheeks and lips were so coated with the crystals from their frozen breath that their faces were not discernible. This gave them the seeming of ghostly masques, undertakers in a spectral world at the funeral of some ghost. But under it all they were men, penetrating the land of desolation and mockery and silence, puny adventurers bent on colossal adventure, pitting themselves against the might of a world as remote and alien and pulseless as the abysses of space.
They travelled on without speech, saving their breath for the work of their bodies. On every side was the silence, pressing upon them with a tangible presence.
The pale light of the short sunless day was beginning to fade, when a faint far cry arose on the still air. It soared upward with a swift rush, till it reached its topmost note, where it persisted, palpitant and tense, and then slowly died away. It might have been a lost soul wailing, had it not been invested with a certain sad fierceness and hungry eagerness.
A second cry arose, piercing the silence with needlelike shrillness. Both men located the sound. It was to the rear, somewhere in the snow expanse they had just traversed. A third and answering cry arose, also to the rear and to the left of the second cry.
"They're after us, Bill," said the man at the front.
"Meat is scarce," answered his comrade. "I ain't seen a rabbit sign for days.”
At the fall of darkness they swung the dogs into a cluster of spruce trees on the edge of the waterway and made a camp. The coffin, at the side of the fire, served for seat and table. The wolf-dogs, clustered on the far side of the fire, snarled and bickered among themselves, but evinced no inclination to stray off into the darkness.
- - -
"Henry," said Bill, munching with deliberation the beans he was eating, "How many dogs 've we got, Henry?"
"Six."
"Well, Henry . . ." Bill stopped for a moment, in order that his words might gain greater significance. "As I was sayin', Henry, we've got six dogs. I took six fish out of the bag. I gave one fish to each dog, an', Henry, I was one fish short."
"You counted wrong."
"We've got six dogs," the other reiterated dispassionately. "took out six fish. One Ear didn't get no fish. I come back to the bag afterward an' got 'm his fish."
"We've only got six dogs," Henry said.
"Henry," Bill went on, "I won't say they was all dogs, but there was seven of 'm that got fish."
Henry stopped eating to glance across the fire and count the dogs.
"There's only six now," he said.
"I saw the other one run off across the snow," Bill announced with cool positiveness. "I saw seven.”
Bill opened his mouth to speak, but changed his mind. Instead, he pointed toward the wall of darkness that pressed about them from every side. There was no suggestion of form in the utter blackness; only could be seen a pair of eyes gleaming like live coals. Henry indicated with his head a second pair, and a third. A circle of the gleaming eyes had drawn about their camp.
Which of the following is NOT true?
The setting plays a major role in this passage. The author begins the passage with a long, formal description of the environment before introducing the two main characters, whom you initially can't tell apart. Which of the listed effects does the setting directly have on the plot of the story, though? To find the answer choice that is not true, you may want to consider each of them. If you can identify four of them that are certainly true based on textual evidence, you'll have indirectly located the one that is not.
"Because of the story’s setting, the men don’t often speak while traveling." - This is true, and we have direct evidence for this cause-effect relationship because the passage states, "They travelled on without speech, saving their breath for the work of their bodies."
"Because of the story’s setting, the men are in danger of being eaten by wild animals." - This is also true; the brief conversation that Bill and Henry have while they travel tells us that they are being followed by hungry wild animals.
"Because of the story’s setting, the men are in danger of freezing to death if they are not careful." - This is also true; the descriptions of the frigidity of the environment plus lines like "Eyelashes and cheeks and lips were so coated with the crystals from their frozen breath that their faces were not discernible" tell us that the men could easily freeze to death if they are not careful.
"Because of the story’s setting, one man has already died." - This is also correct, based on what the narrator tells us. He most directly discusses the third man who has died in the third paragraph when the narrator states, "On the sled, in the box, lay a third man whose toil was over, -- a man whom the Wild had conquered and beaten down until he would never move nor struggle again." The narrator describes the environment as "the Wild" at the end of the first paragraph, so here, he is attributing the third man's death to the environment directly.
The correct answer, then, must be "Because of the story’s setting, the men are lost." This is not a true statement, so it is the correct answer. We are never given any indication that the men are lost, just that traveling is difficult.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
“Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
In what way does petrified wood differ from dinosaur fossils?
In the section "A Type of Fossil," the passage compares petrified wood to other fossils like dinosaur bones and imprints. The section begins by setting up for discussion of "a big difference" between petrified wood and most other fossils:
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone.
This answers the question at hand: dinosaur fossils are parts of ancient creatures, but petrification preserves the likeness of an entire tree. This is the correct answer. The passage doesn't say anything about dinosaur fossils always being bigger than petrified trees, nor does it say anything about the relative value of dinosaur fossils and petrified wood. The answer choice "Dinosaur fossils can only form when oxygen does not get to the organism being fossilized, but petrification requires that a tree be exposed to oxygen" may seem correct, but read it carefully, and you'll find that its last part, "petrification requires that a tree be exposed to oxygen," is incorrect based on what we learn in the rest of the passage. Petrified trees only form when fallen trees are prevented from rotting by being buried so oxygen can't get to them and make them rot. "Dinosaur fossils are two-dimensional imprints, but petrification creates a three-dimensional stone tree" may also look like a great answer choice; however, the passage states, "Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons." Skeletons aren't two-dimensional imprints, so we can't claim that "Dinosaur fossils are two-dimensional imprints."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.
Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.
Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the hoard and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.
Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.
According to the context of the passage, “Waterloo,” “Laon“ and “La Rothiere” are
In paragraph one, the author asks the readers if they’ve heard of Napoleon’s most embarrassing surrender, and follows by clarifying that they are not referring to “Waterloo,” “Laon“ or “La Rothiere.” So, these three terms are examples of other defeats Napoleon suffered that readers might confuse with the topic the author is referring to. Contextually, we know these seem to be the locations of the battles, so we’re left with “Three battles lost by Napoleon and his army.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.
Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.
Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the hoard and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.
Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.
Which of the following is not a term used to describe the bunnies that attacked Napoleon and his men?
The author uses a variety of descriptive language to help readers better picture the situation unfolding in the text. Throughout the passage, the bunnies are referred to as a horde (paragraph three), a swarm (paragraph three), and an army (paragraph 3). The rabbits are not, however, referred to as a “hunting party.” The hunting party consisted of Napoleon and his men, the group planning to pursue the rabbits until they learned that the tables had turned.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.
Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.
Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the hoard and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.
Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.
In paragraph three of the passage, the author cites that Berthier was “Not to be outdone” most probably in order to
Paragraph three begins with the phrase “not to be outdone” to foreshadow Berthier’s commitment to organizing a successful hunt, and his motivation for sourcing so many rabbits. While we don’t know that he was actively competing with others for the right to organize the event, and - to our knowledge - Berthier hadn’t earned the title “most successful party planner of all time” (and he definitely didn’t reinforce it with this event!) we do know that he was taking Napoleon’s instructions seriously, and wanted to ensure the hunt lived up to the extravagance and success Napoleon required.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Every day it seems, new inventions surface that promise to add value to our day-to-day lives. But did you know, many of the inventions we interact with on a daily basis were developed completely by accident?
Take the microwave, for instance. This accidental invention was developed by engineer Percy Spencer who, upon experimenting with a microwave-emitting magnetron, found that the candy bar in his pocket had begun to melt. Spencer was then able to harness this radiation into the microwave we use today to make snack time a speedy process!
Perhaps one of the most well-known accidental inventions of today, the potato chip was born when a customer kept requesting that his french fries be sliced thinner and made crispier. Though chef George Crum responded with the chips as a joke, they quickly became a favorite snack around the world!
Even the match is a result of accidental invention. When pharmacist John Walker was stirring chemicals, he noticed that the end of his stirring stick had dried into a hardened lump. When attempting to scrape the dried residue off, a flame sparked, and so did Walker’s idea to turn this accident into a helpful tool!
So, the next time your science experiment doesn’t go as planned, or you burn what you have cooked on the stove, keep in mind that some of today’s most valued inventions were discovered when the inventor least expected it!
Which of the following is not cited as an example of an accidental invention in the passage?
Throughout the passage, the author gives many examples of inventions that were initially discovered accidentally, including the microwave (paragraph 2), the potato chip (paragraph 3), and the match (paragraph 4). While the author mentions “cooking on the stove” in paragraph 5, the author is not claiming that the stove itself is an accidental invention, but is instead suggesting that discoveries can happen when we least expect them.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Every day it seems, new inventions surface that promise to add value to our day-to-day lives. But did you know, many of the inventions we interact with on a daily basis were developed completely by accident?
Take the microwave, for instance. This accidental invention was developed by engineer Percy Spencer who, upon experimenting with a microwave-emitting magnetron, found that the candy bar in his pocket had begun to melt. Spencer was then able to harness this radiation into the microwave we use today to make snack time a speedy process!
Perhaps one of the most well-known accidental inventions of today, the potato chip was born when a customer kept requesting that his french fries be sliced thinner and made crispier. Though chef George Crum responded with the chips as a joke, they quickly became a favorite snack around the world!
Even the match is a result of accidental invention. When pharmacist John Walker was stirring chemicals, he noticed that the end of his stirring stick had dried into a hardened lump. When attempting to scrape the dried residue off, a flame sparked, and so did Walker’s idea to turn this accident into a helpful tool!
So, the next time your science experiment doesn’t go as planned, or you burn what you have cooked on the stove, keep in mind that some of today’s most valued inventions were discovered when the inventor least expected it!
The author cites the example of when “you burn what you have cooked on the stove” in the final paragraph of the passage most probably in order to
In the final paragraph of the passage, the author lists examples of things we might consider mistakes that have historically gone on to create the inventions we know today. So, the author is reinforcing that “what we might consider a mistake can sometimes turn out to be a helpful invention.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The animal kingdom is made up of creatures of all shapes, sizes, and colors. While we may see color as little more than decoration, animals use their colors in three key ways: to hide, to deceive, and to attract.
The first purpose of color in the animal kingdom, to hide, is perhaps the most commonly known. Animals use a variety of colorations to camouflage themselves or to obscure their shapes from predators. For instance, the owl is often colored and patterned to match the bark of its tree of choice to better blend into its surroundings when perched. The leafy seadragon, an aquatic example of a species employing color to hide, uses its blue-green coloration and leaf-like protrusions to blend into the aquatic foliage of its ecosystem. But perhaps no species is better known for its ability to use color to hide than the chameleon, which can change color to blend into its surroundings. In fact, the chameleon is so well-known for this trait that its name has become a term that is now generally used to refer to one who “changes to fit/blend in.”
Deception is the second function of color in animals. Animals have been known to use their colors and patterns to deceive potential predators and prey. The hemeroplanes triptolemus, otherwise known as the aptly named “snake mimic caterpillar,” uses large, eye-like colorations on its underbelly to flip over and appear snake-like and thus more intimidating to predators. The orchid mantis is another fascinating example of deception in the animal kingdom. Brightly colored in hues of pink and purple, the mantis contorts itself to appear flower-like as it awaits its prey. When pollinators come around expecting a flower to feed on, they are in for a surprise, as the mantis sits ready to strike.
Animals don’t always use their colors to become less pronounced or to hide their true forms from predators or prey. They can also use colors to attract. Bright colorations in animals are used to both attract mates, and to attract attention from and send a warning to potential predators. Many species of birds are known to use bright colorations to attract potential female mates. Additionally, poisonous creatures might be seen with bright colorations and patterns to warn potential predators to leave them be! In fact, many non-poisonous animals have taken this “attract attention” purpose and melded it with “deception” to use their bright coloration to appear poisonous and thus dangerous to predators - even though they are completely harmless!
When it comes to animal colorations, there’s more than meets the eye. With bright colors to attract a mate or ward off a foe, patterns to obscure one’s form and markings that can make even the most harmless bug look like a terrifying creature, animals use color in many ways to better their chances of survival in the wild.
According to the passage, a harmless animal using bright colors to appear poisonous is using color in which of the following ways?
According to paragraph four of the passage, “many non-poisonous animals have taken this “attract attention” purpose and melded it with “deception” to use their bright coloration to appear poisonous and thus dangerous to predators.” So, non-poisonous animals using bright colors “attract” attention and “deceive.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The animal kingdom is made up of creatures of all shapes, sizes, and colors. While we may see color as little more than decoration, animals use their colors in three key ways: to hide, to deceive, and to attract.
The first purpose of color in the animal kingdom, to hide, is perhaps the most commonly known. Animals use a variety of colorations to camouflage themselves or to obscure their shapes from predators. For instance, the owl is often colored and patterned to match the bark of its tree of choice to better blend into its surroundings when perched. The leafy seadragon, an aquatic example of a species employing color to hide, uses its blue-green coloration and leaf-like protrusions to blend into the aquatic foliage of its ecosystem. But perhaps no species is better known for its ability to use color to hide than the chameleon, which can change color to blend into its surroundings. In fact, the chameleon is so well-known for this trait that its name has become a term that is now generally used to refer to one who “changes to fit/blend in.”
Deception is the second function of color in animals. Animals have been known to use their colors and patterns to deceive potential predators and prey. The hemeroplanes triptolemus, otherwise known as the aptly named “snake mimic caterpillar,” uses large, eye-like colorations on its underbelly to flip over and appear snake-like and thus more intimidating to predators. The orchid mantis is another fascinating example of deception in the animal kingdom. Brightly colored in hues of pink and purple, the mantis contorts itself to appear flower-like as it awaits its prey. When pollinators come around expecting a flower to feed on, they are in for a surprise, as the mantis sits ready to strike.
Animals don’t always use their colors to become less pronounced or to hide their true forms from predators or prey. They can also use colors to attract. Bright colorations in animals are used to both attract mates, and to attract attention from and send a warning to potential predators. Many species of birds are known to use bright colorations to attract potential female mates. Additionally, poisonous creatures might be seen with bright colorations and patterns to warn potential predators to leave them be! In fact, many non-poisonous animals have taken this “attract attention” purpose and melded it with “deception” to use their bright coloration to appear poisonous and thus dangerous to predators - even though they are completely harmless!
When it comes to animal colorations, there’s more than meets the eye. With bright colors to attract a mate or ward off a foe, patterns to obscure one’s form and markings that can make even the most harmless bug look like a terrifying creature, animals use color in many ways to better their chances of survival in the wild.
The leafy seadragon and the snake mimic caterpillar are examples of which functions of color in the animal kingdom?
The leafy seadragon is given as an example of an animal that uses color to hide in paragraph two, and the snake mimic caterpillar is an example of an animal that uses color to deceive in paragraph three, so the examples of these species function to show the purposes of “Hide and deceive, respectively.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The animal kingdom is made up of creatures of all shapes, sizes, and colors. While we may see color as little more than decoration, animals use their colors in three key ways: to hide, to deceive, and to attract.
The first purpose of color in the animal kingdom, to hide, is perhaps the most commonly known. Animals use a variety of colorations to camouflage themselves or to obscure their shapes from predators. For instance, the owl is often colored and patterned to match the bark of its tree of choice to better blend into its surroundings when perched. The leafy seadragon, an aquatic example of a species employing color to hide, uses its blue-green coloration and leaf-like protrusions to blend into the aquatic foliage of its ecosystem. But perhaps no species is better known for its ability to use color to hide than the chameleon, which can change color to blend into its surroundings. In fact, the chameleon is so well-known for this trait that its name has become a term that is now generally used to refer to one who “changes to fit/blend in.”
Deception is the second function of color in animals. Animals have been known to use their colors and patterns to deceive potential predators and prey. The hemeroplanes triptolemus, otherwise known as the aptly named “snake mimic caterpillar,” uses large, eye-like colorations on its underbelly to flip over and appear snake-like and thus more intimidating to predators. The orchid mantis is another fascinating example of deception in the animal kingdom. Brightly colored in hues of pink and purple, the mantis contorts itself to appear flower-like as it awaits its prey. When pollinators come around expecting a flower to feed on, they are in for a surprise, as the mantis sits ready to strike.
Animals don’t always use their colors to become less pronounced or to hide their true forms from predators or prey. They can also use colors to attract. Bright colorations in animals are used to both attract mates, and to attract attention from and send a warning to potential predators. Many species of birds are known to use bright colorations to attract potential female mates. Additionally, poisonous creatures might be seen with bright colorations and patterns to warn potential predators to leave them be! In fact, many non-poisonous animals have taken this “attract attention” purpose and melded it with “deception” to use their bright coloration to appear poisonous and thus dangerous to predators - even though they are completely harmless!
When it comes to animal colorations, there’s more than meets the eye. With bright colors to attract a mate or ward off a foe, patterns to obscure one’s form and markings that can make even the most harmless bug look like a terrifying creature, animals use color in many ways to better their chances of survival in the wild.
According to the passage, which of the following might be an example of an animal that uses coloring to “obscure one’s form?”
The function of color “to obscure one’s form,” is listed as a separate function in the passage, but an example of such a creature was not provided. However, we can use context and process of elimination to see that the snake mimic caterpillar, the wasp, and the red-winged blackbird all have distinctly different uses of color than “to obscure one’s form.” The Zebra, however, uses its stripes to “make it difficult for predators to make out the shape and movement direction of the animal,” thus obscuring or concealing its shape and movement.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.
Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.
Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.
Passage 2:
Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.
Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.
Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.
“Picasso” and “Michelangelo” are included in Passage 1 most likely in order to
The author of Passage 1 cites “Picasso” and “Michelangelo” to provide examples of well-known traditional artists in order to make the claim that graffiti artists “will eventually come to match” the popularity of traditional artists.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
The penny has long outlived its usefulness in the monetary system and should be removed from use. Pennies cost more to produce than the value they represent. In fact, it costs taxpayers nearly two cents to produce and distribute every one cent penny.
Additionally, the penny does not represent the real level of purchasing power. Go to the corner store today and ask for the “penny candy,” and you might be routed to a row of treats, but you’re unlikely to find anything for purchase for under a quarter.
On top of the cost and lack of benefit, pennies are also heavy for their value, so much so that many don’t even care to keep the pennies they receive in change. 11% of people report that they would rather throw a penny away than carry it around with them, and over $62 million dollars in coins are thrown out annually - most of them pennies.
Whether it’s at the grocery register or at the bank, everyone who handles pennies agrees that they are excessively time-consuming to process. Even most charities would rather do without the pennies they receive! It’s time we let go of this costly antiquity and get rid of the penny once and for all!
Passage 2:
The penny is a sacred historic symbol in America and should be respected for its historical value. Over half of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny, and many fear the trend that eliminating low-value currency sets. “Rounding tax,” or the inclination for businesses to round prices up to the nearest unit of change available, could have an impact on consumers, and as inflation continues, the nickel, the dime, and even the quarter could follow!
Not only does the penny help keep costs low, but it would also be costly to take out of commission effectively. The penny is also a powerful historical tribute to Abraham Lincoln, who has appeared on the penny’s face since 1909.
The penny represents far more than its one-cent value and eliminating it would take a toll on the history it represents and the majority of citizens who seek to keep it in commission.
Which of the following is not cited as a disadvantage to the penny in Passage 1?
In Passage 1, the author makes the claim that the penny has outlived its usefulness and should be eliminated. To support this argument, the author cites the penny’s lack of purchasing power, weight and corresponding inconvenience, and several other disadvantages. The author does not, however, cite historical significance as a disadvantage of the penny.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The animal kingdom is made up of creatures of all shapes, sizes, and colors. While we may see color as little more than decoration, animals use their colors in three key ways: to hide, to deceive, and to attract.
The first purpose of color in the animal kingdom, to hide, is perhaps the most commonly known. Animals use a variety of colorations to camouflage themselves or to obscure their shapes from predators. For instance, the owl is often colored and patterned to match the bark of its tree of choice to better blend into its surroundings when perched. The leafy seadragon, an aquatic example of a species employing color to hide, uses its blue-green coloration and leaf-like protrusions to blend into the aquatic foliage of its ecosystem. But perhaps no species is better known for its ability to use color to hide than the chameleon, which can change color to blend into its surroundings. In fact, the chameleon is so well-known for this trait that its name has become a term that is now generally used to refer to one who “changes to fit/blend in.”
Deception is the second function of color in animals. Animals have been known to use their colors and patterns to deceive potential predators and prey. The hemeroplanes triptolemus, otherwise known as the aptly named “snake mimic caterpillar,” uses large, eye-like colorations on its underbelly to flip over and appear snake-like and thus more intimidating to predators. The orchid mantis is another fascinating example of deception in the animal kingdom. Brightly colored in hues of pink and purple, the mantis contorts itself to appear flower-like as it awaits its prey. When pollinators come around expecting a flower to feed on, they are in for a surprise, as the mantis sits ready to strike.
Animals don’t always use their colors to become less pronounced or to hide their true forms from predators or prey. They can also use colors to attract. Bright colorations in animals are used to both attract mates, and to attract attention from and send a warning to potential predators. Many species of birds are known to use bright colorations to attract potential female mates. Additionally, poisonous creatures might be seen with bright colorations and patterns to warn potential predators to leave them be! In fact, many non-poisonous animals have taken this “attract attention” purpose and melded it with “deception” to use their bright coloration to appear poisonous and thus dangerous to predators - even though they are completely harmless!
When it comes to animal colorations, there’s more than meets the eye. With bright colors to attract a mate or ward off a foe, patterns to obscure one’s form and markings that can make even the most harmless bug look like a terrifying creature, animals use color in many ways to better their chances of survival in the wild.
The leafy seadragon and the snake mimic caterpillar are examples of which functions of color in the animal kingdom?
The leafy seadragon is given as an example of an animal that uses color to hide in paragraph two, and the snake mimic caterpillar is an example of an animal that uses color to deceive in paragraph three, so the examples of these species function to show the purposes of “Hide and deceive, respectively.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from White Fang by Jack London (1906)
Dark spruce forest frowned on either side the frozen waterway. The trees had been stripped by a recent wind of their white covering of frost, and they seemed to lean toward each other, black and ominous, in the fading light. A vast silence reigned over the land. The land itself was a desolation, lifeless, without movement, so lone and cold that the spirit of it was not even that of sadness. There was a hint in it of laughter, but of a laughter more terrible than any sadness -- a laughter that was mirthless as the smile of the Sphinx, a laughter cold as the frost and partaking of the grimness of infallibility. It was the masterful and incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort of life. It was the Wild, the savage, frozen-hearted Northland Wild.
But there was life, abroad in the land and defiant. Down the frozen waterway toiled a string of wolfish dogs. Their bristly fur was rimed with frost. Their breath froze in the air as it left their mouths, spouting forth in spumes of vapor that settled upon the hair of their bodies and formed into crystals of frost. Leather harness was on the dogs, and leather traces attached them to a sled which dragged along behind. On the sled, securely lashed, was a long and narrow oblong box. There were other things on the sled -- blankets, an axe, and a coffee-pot and frying-pan; but prominent, occupying most of the space, was the long and narrow oblong box.
In advance of the dogs, on wide snowshoes, toiled a man. At the rear of the sled toiled a second man. On the sled, in the box, lay a third man whose toil was over, -- a man whom the Wild had conquered and beaten down until he would never move nor struggle again.
But at front and rear, unawed and indomitable, toiled the two men who were not yet dead. Their bodies were covered with fur and soft-tanned leather. Eyelashes and cheeks and lips were so coated with the crystals from their frozen breath that their faces were not discernible. This gave them the seeming of ghostly masques, undertakers in a spectral world at the funeral of some ghost. But under it all they were men, penetrating the land of desolation and mockery and silence, puny adventurers bent on colossal adventure, pitting themselves against the might of a world as remote and alien and pulseless as the abysses of space.
They travelled on without speech, saving their breath for the work of their bodies. On every side was the silence, pressing upon them with a tangible presence.
The pale light of the short sunless day was beginning to fade, when a faint far cry arose on the still air. It soared upward with a swift rush, till it reached its topmost note, where it persisted, palpitant and tense, and then slowly died away. It might have been a lost soul wailing, had it not been invested with a certain sad fierceness and hungry eagerness.
A second cry arose, piercing the silence with needlelike shrillness. Both men located the sound. It was to the rear, somewhere in the snow expanse they had just traversed. A third and answering cry arose, also to the rear and to the left of the second cry.
"They're after us, Bill," said the man at the front.
"Meat is scarce," answered his comrade. "I ain't seen a rabbit sign for days.”
At the fall of darkness they swung the dogs into a cluster of spruce trees on the edge of the waterway and made a camp. The coffin, at the side of the fire, served for seat and table. The wolf-dogs, clustered on the far side of the fire, snarled and bickered among themselves, but evinced no inclination to stray off into the darkness.
- - -
"Henry," said Bill, munching with deliberation the beans he was eating, "How many dogs 've we got, Henry?"
"Six."
"Well, Henry . . ." Bill stopped for a moment, in order that his words might gain greater significance. "As I was sayin', Henry, we've got six dogs. I took six fish out of the bag. I gave one fish to each dog, an', Henry, I was one fish short."
"You counted wrong."
"We've got six dogs," the other reiterated dispassionately. "took out six fish. One Ear didn't get no fish. I come back to the bag afterward an' got 'm his fish."
"We've only got six dogs," Henry said.
"Henry," Bill went on, "I won't say they was all dogs, but there was seven of 'm that got fish."
Henry stopped eating to glance across the fire and count the dogs.
"There's only six now," he said.
"I saw the other one run off across the snow," Bill announced with cool positiveness. "I saw seven.”
Bill opened his mouth to speak, but changed his mind. Instead, he pointed toward the wall of darkness that pressed about them from every side. There was no suggestion of form in the utter blackness; only could be seen a pair of eyes gleaming like live coals. Henry indicated with his head a second pair, and a third. A circle of the gleaming eyes had drawn about their camp.
Which of the following is NOT true?
The setting plays a major role in this passage. The author begins the passage with a long, formal description of the environment before introducing the two main characters, whom you initially can't tell apart. Which of the listed effects does the setting directly have on the plot of the story, though? To find the answer choice that is not true, you may want to consider each of them. If you can identify four of them that are certainly true based on textual evidence, you'll have indirectly located the one that is not.
"Because of the story’s setting, the men don’t often speak while traveling." - This is true, and we have direct evidence for this cause-effect relationship because the passage states, "They travelled on without speech, saving their breath for the work of their bodies."
"Because of the story’s setting, the men are in danger of being eaten by wild animals." - This is also true; the brief conversation that Bill and Henry have while they travel tells us that they are being followed by hungry wild animals.
"Because of the story’s setting, the men are in danger of freezing to death if they are not careful." - This is also true; the descriptions of the frigidity of the environment plus lines like "Eyelashes and cheeks and lips were so coated with the crystals from their frozen breath that their faces were not discernible" tell us that the men could easily freeze to death if they are not careful.
"Because of the story’s setting, one man has already died." - This is also correct, based on what the narrator tells us. He most directly discusses the third man who has died in the third paragraph when the narrator states, "On the sled, in the box, lay a third man whose toil was over, -- a man whom the Wild had conquered and beaten down until he would never move nor struggle again." The narrator describes the environment as "the Wild" at the end of the first paragraph, so here, he is attributing the third man's death to the environment directly.
The correct answer, then, must be "Because of the story’s setting, the men are lost." This is not a true statement, so it is the correct answer. We are never given any indication that the men are lost, just that traveling is difficult.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
“Stone Trees”
Have you ever seen a stone tree? While the idea of a stone tree may sound fantastic, fallen trees can turn to stone in very specific circumstances, producing what scientists call “petrified wood.” “Petra” means stone in ancient Greek, so something “petrified” has been turned to stone. You may have heard the word “petrified” used to describe someone so scared that they have frozen as if turned to stone, but scientists use the word literally to refer to actual stone. Petrified trees are stone trees, not scared trees!
A Type of Fossil
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone. It’s very cool to see a petrified tree close-up, because it is still precisely life-size; you can get an idea of how big the tree was when it was alive, and even see individual tree cells that have been preserved. You can even count the tree rings in some petrified trees and estimate how old the tree grew to be before it was petrified.
From Tree to Stone
In order for a tree to become petrified wood, it must have died and been buried a very long time ago. This has to have happened in a specific environment, though, or petrified wood would not be so rare. The tree has to be buried in such a way that oxygen cannot get to its bark and wood. If oxygen can get to the tree, it will rot instead of turn to stone.
The environment has to have two more specific characteristics to produce petrified wood: there has to be water in the ground around the tree, and that water has to contain minerals. If mineral-containing water is present, water will go into and out of the tree’s cells and, over time, the minerals in the water will accumulate in the tree’s cells. When the tree’s cells eventually decay, the minerals are left. Petrified wood can be a rainbow of different colors, with each color corresponding to different elements in the tree’s preserving environment that affect the color of the minerals that form its stone.
Petrified wood is found all over the world, and there are even entire forests of petrified trees that you can travel to go see today. One national park in the United States, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, is famous for its many petrified trees. The next time you see a tree, remember, after a few million years in the right environment, it could turn to stone!
In what way does petrified wood differ from dinosaur fossils?
In the section "A Type of Fossil," the passage compares petrified wood to other fossils like dinosaur bones and imprints. The section begins by setting up for discussion of "a big difference" between petrified wood and most other fossils:
Like ancient skeletons of dinosaurs and other organisms preserved in the earth, petrified wood is a type of fossil; however, there is a big difference between petrified wood and most fossils. Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons. In contrast, the process of petrification recreates an entire preserved tree in stone.
This answers the question at hand: dinosaur fossils are parts of ancient creatures, but petrification preserves the likeness of an entire tree. This is the correct answer. The passage doesn't say anything about dinosaur fossils always being bigger than petrified trees, nor does it say anything about the relative value of dinosaur fossils and petrified wood. The answer choice "Dinosaur fossils can only form when oxygen does not get to the organism being fossilized, but petrification requires that a tree be exposed to oxygen" may seem correct, but read it carefully, and you'll find that its last part, "petrification requires that a tree be exposed to oxygen," is incorrect based on what we learn in the rest of the passage. Petrified trees only form when fallen trees are prevented from rotting by being buried so oxygen can't get to them and make them rot. "Dinosaur fossils are two-dimensional imprints, but petrification creates a three-dimensional stone tree" may also look like a great answer choice; however, the passage states, "Most fossils are imprints of creatures or partial remains of them, such as their skeletons." Skeletons aren't two-dimensional imprints, so we can't claim that "Dinosaur fossils are two-dimensional imprints."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.
Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.
Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the hoard and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.
Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.
According to the context of the passage, “Waterloo,” “Laon“ and “La Rothiere” are
In paragraph one, the author asks the readers if they’ve heard of Napoleon’s most embarrassing surrender, and follows by clarifying that they are not referring to “Waterloo,” “Laon“ or “La Rothiere.” So, these three terms are examples of other defeats Napoleon suffered that readers might confuse with the topic the author is referring to. Contextually, we know these seem to be the locations of the battles, so we’re left with “Three battles lost by Napoleon and his army.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.
Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.
Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the hoard and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.
Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.
Which of the following is not a term used to describe the bunnies that attacked Napoleon and his men?
The author uses a variety of descriptive language to help readers better picture the situation unfolding in the text. Throughout the passage, the bunnies are referred to as a horde (paragraph three), a swarm (paragraph three), and an army (paragraph 3). The rabbits are not, however, referred to as a “hunting party.” The hunting party consisted of Napoleon and his men, the group planning to pursue the rabbits until they learned that the tables had turned.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.
Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.
Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the hoard and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.
Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.
In paragraph three of the passage, the author cites that Berthier was “Not to be outdone” most probably in order to
Paragraph three begins with the phrase “not to be outdone” to foreshadow Berthier’s commitment to organizing a successful hunt, and his motivation for sourcing so many rabbits. While we don’t know that he was actively competing with others for the right to organize the event, and - to our knowledge - Berthier hadn’t earned the title “most successful party planner of all time” (and he definitely didn’t reinforce it with this event!) we do know that he was taking Napoleon’s instructions seriously, and wanted to ensure the hunt lived up to the extravagance and success Napoleon required.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Every day it seems, new inventions surface that promise to add value to our day-to-day lives. But did you know, many of the inventions we interact with on a daily basis were developed completely by accident?
Take the microwave, for instance. This accidental invention was developed by engineer Percy Spencer who, upon experimenting with a microwave-emitting magnetron, found that the candy bar in his pocket had begun to melt. Spencer was then able to harness this radiation into the microwave we use today to make snack time a speedy process!
Perhaps one of the most well-known accidental inventions of today, the potato chip was born when a customer kept requesting that his french fries be sliced thinner and made crispier. Though chef George Crum responded with the chips as a joke, they quickly became a favorite snack around the world!
Even the match is a result of accidental invention. When pharmacist John Walker was stirring chemicals, he noticed that the end of his stirring stick had dried into a hardened lump. When attempting to scrape the dried residue off, a flame sparked, and so did Walker’s idea to turn this accident into a helpful tool!
So, the next time your science experiment doesn’t go as planned, or you burn what you have cooked on the stove, keep in mind that some of today’s most valued inventions were discovered when the inventor least expected it!
Which of the following is not cited as an example of an accidental invention in the passage?
Throughout the passage, the author gives many examples of inventions that were initially discovered accidentally, including the microwave (paragraph 2), the potato chip (paragraph 3), and the match (paragraph 4). While the author mentions “cooking on the stove” in paragraph 5, the author is not claiming that the stove itself is an accidental invention, but is instead suggesting that discoveries can happen when we least expect them.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Every day it seems, new inventions surface that promise to add value to our day-to-day lives. But did you know, many of the inventions we interact with on a daily basis were developed completely by accident?
Take the microwave, for instance. This accidental invention was developed by engineer Percy Spencer who, upon experimenting with a microwave-emitting magnetron, found that the candy bar in his pocket had begun to melt. Spencer was then able to harness this radiation into the microwave we use today to make snack time a speedy process!
Perhaps one of the most well-known accidental inventions of today, the potato chip was born when a customer kept requesting that his french fries be sliced thinner and made crispier. Though chef George Crum responded with the chips as a joke, they quickly became a favorite snack around the world!
Even the match is a result of accidental invention. When pharmacist John Walker was stirring chemicals, he noticed that the end of his stirring stick had dried into a hardened lump. When attempting to scrape the dried residue off, a flame sparked, and so did Walker’s idea to turn this accident into a helpful tool!
So, the next time your science experiment doesn’t go as planned, or you burn what you have cooked on the stove, keep in mind that some of today’s most valued inventions were discovered when the inventor least expected it!
The author cites the example of when “you burn what you have cooked on the stove” in the final paragraph of the passage most probably in order to
In the final paragraph of the passage, the author lists examples of things we might consider mistakes that have historically gone on to create the inventions we know today. So, the author is reinforcing that “what we might consider a mistake can sometimes turn out to be a helpful invention.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above