Card 0 of 60
Adapted from Pinocchio by Carl Collodi (1883)
There was once upon a time a piece of wood in the shop of an old carpenter named Master Antonio. Everybody, however, called him Master Cherry, on account of the end of his nose, which was always as red and polished as a ripe cherry.
No sooner had Master Cherry set eyes on the piece of wood than his face beamed with delight, and, rubbing his hands together with satisfaction, he said softly to himself:
"This wood has come at the right moment; it will just do to make the leg of a little table."
He immediately took a sharp axe with which to remove the bark and the rough surface, but just as he was going to give the first stroke he heard a very small voice say imploringly, "Do not strike me so hard!"
He turned his terrified eyes all around the room to try and discover where the little voice could possibly have come from, but he saw nobody! He looked under the bench—nobody; he looked into a cupboard that was always shut—nobody; he looked into a basket of shavings and sawdust—nobody; he even opened the door of the shop and gave a glance into the street—and still nobody. Who, then, could it be?
"I see how it is," he said, laughing and scratching his wig, "evidently that little voice was all my imagination. Let us set to work again."
And, taking up the axe, he struck a tremendous blow on the piece of wood.
"Oh! oh! you have hurt me!" cried the same little voice dolefully.
This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:
"But where on earth can that little voice have come from that said 'Oh! oh!'? Is it possible that this piece of wood can have learned to cry and to lament like a child? I cannot believe it. This piece of wood is nothing but a log for fuel like all the others, and thrown on the fire it would about suffice to boil a saucepan of beans. How then? Can anyone be hidden inside it? If anyone is hidden inside, so much the worse for him. I will settle him at once."
So saying, he seized the poor piece of wood and commenced beating it without mercy against the walls of the room.
Then he stopped to listen if he could hear any little voice lamenting. He waited two minutes—nothing; five minutes—nothing; ten minutes—still nothing!
"I see how it is," he then said, forcing himself to laugh, and pushing up his wig; "evidently the little voice that said 'Oh! oh!' was all my imagination! Let us set to work again."
Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"
This time poor Master Cherry fell down as if he had been struck by lightning. When he at last opened his eyes he found himself seated on the floor.
His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright.
Why did everyone refer to Master Antonio as "Master Cherry"?
We are introduced to Master Antonio in the first paragraph in the passage, and we learn how he received his nickname:
"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."
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
Why, after the narrator mentions Luchesi, does Fortunato agree to go with the narrator?
Let's take a look at the moment in the story at which this exchange takes place. The narrator has told Fortunato about having acquired "a pipe of what passes for Amontillado."
“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.”
Remembering one more detail from earlier in the story helps to ground this conversation: at the start of the third paragraph, we're told by the narrator, "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." What meaning does all of this allow us to make from the above conversation, specifically about how Fortunato reacts to hearing Luchresi mentioned? Well, the narrator is talking about not being sure that the amontillado he has purchased is actually amontillado. He mentions that he "was silly enough to pay the full Amontillado price without consulting you in the matter." This tells us a few things: real amontillado is expensive, and the narrator would normally have consulted Fortunato before purchasing amontillado. Why is that? Presumably to make sure that he's purchasing real amontillado. After this part of the conversation, the narrator adds, "As you are engaged, I am on my way to Luchresi. If any one has a critical turn it is he." Here, we see that the narrator has turned to Luchresi for help in identifying if the amontillado is real or not. To this, Fortunato replies, "Luchresi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry." After insulting Luchresi's expertise, Fortunato tells the narrator that they are going to the narrator's vaults, presumably to ascertain the authenticity of the amontillado. What would motivate Fortunato to do this? We know that he "pride\[s\]" himself on his knowledge of wine, so hearing the narrator say that he is going to rely on someone else's expertise is enough to make Fortunato defensive. He wants to be the expert the narrator consults, so he jumps in and interrupts the narrator's working with Luchresi. Based on this reasoning, we can confidently answer that "Fortunato desires to prove himself more knowledgeable than Luchresi."
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.
According to what the poem directly states, what effect does the narrator’s going to look at the stars have on him?
This question requires you to read the poem very carefully. It actually focuses on one particular word! As you start to answer it, you need to orient yourself in the poem: where should you look for the answer? You're being asked about the effect of the narrator's going out to look at the stars, so you know that the answer will be found in the latter part of the poem, not in the first part where the narrator is interacting with the astronomer. After the narrator listens to the astronomer,
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 narrator relates how he feels "tired and sick" in line 5, so our answer has to come after that, since it's the cause and the answer is the effect. The narrator certainly doesn't give any indication that he wants to return to the lecture-room, and he doesn't lose interest in the stars altogether. It's listening to the astronomer that seems to have made him feel "tired and sick," not going out to look at the stars, so that's not the correct answer either. Does looking at the stars make the narrator very happy? You might expect this, but the poem doesn't say anything of the sort, and we need to stick to what the poem actually says, as per the question stem. You can identify the correct answer by noticing the word "Till" that begins line 6. "Till" is another way of saying "until." The narrator tells us that he felt tired and sick until he went out to look at the stars by himself. This allows us to infer that looking at the stars helps the narrator feel better (less tired and sick), which is the correct answer.
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.
Howell’s story is different from that of Mr. Trouvelot’s in that __________.
According to the passage, what did Howell do? He was caught skinning bison in Yellowstone National Park and there was no way to punish him, a point about which the author is frustrated. What did Mr. Trouvelot do? He accidentally released gypsy moths into the United States, where they’ve caused a lot of trouble since. Nothing in the passage says that Mr. Trouvelot worked in a group, so we can eliminate the answer “Howell acted alone while Mr. Trouvelot worked with a group.” Similarly, while the passage says that Mr. Trouvelot was a scientist (an entomologist), it only says that Howell's acts took place in Yellowstone Park, not that he worked there, so “Howell worked for a park while Trouvelot was a scientist” can’t be correct. The author brings up Howell’s story as an example of someone who couldn’t be punished by law for what the author considers an egregiously bad act, so “Howell could be punished by law, while Mr. Trouvelot could not” can’t be correct either. Howell’s story has nothing to do with insects and Mr. Trouvelot released his gypsy moths on accident, so “Howell sought to capture insects while Trouvelot sought to release them” cannot be the correct answer. This leaves us with one answer choice, the correct one: “Howell acted purposely while Trouvelot introduced the moths by accident.”
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.
The author compares the methods of collecting duck feathers and down in Iceland and in North America in the passage. Which of the following is the most significant effect of this comparison on the rest of the passage?
How does the author describe the Icelandic method of collecting eider down? The author interrupts his story about the demand for feathers in North America to contrast it against the Iceland, saying that the North American method "did not tend to conserve and protect the source of supply." He goes on to note that the Icelandic people do not “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs," and instead, receive a renewable income based on down they collect every year. By protecting the ducks, they encourage them to trust people and make down collection easier.
Notice that this is the first method we hear about in the passage, even though the start of the passage only concerns North America (New England, specifically). After hearing about the Icelandic method first, the reader has in his or her mind that this method is one option for collecting feathers. It treats the ducks well and results in a renewable resource. At this point, the author steps back to talking about the North American feather-collection method, drawing a sharp contrast: "In North America, quite a different policy was pursued." He then describes the Labrador feather voyages and uses language that encourages the reader to pity and empathize with (feel for) the ducks: "the birds became the victims of the ships’ crews," the author claims, and later, he describes how "the hunters were able to surround the helpless birds, drive them together, and kill them with clubs." Notice how he uses the words "victims" and "helpless." In the last paragraph, we learn that the Labrador duck has gone extinct, due to causes the author relates to the feather voyages.
This description leaves readers with a very sour impression of the North American method of collecting feathers. The author's description emphasizes its violence and cruelty, and the fact that he describes the peaceful Icelandic method immediately before makes it look like such violence might have been avoided, playing it up even further. The contrast the author creates does not make the Icelandic method seem "old-fashioned" as much as it makes the North American method look "needlessly violent and inhumane." That is the best answer.
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 cites the example species of the pangolin in paragraph two primarily in order to:
On this question, we want to pay close attention to why the author chose to include the example by looking at the context. The term “however” indicates a transition or contrast. Here, the example highlights that the public awareness a species possesses is likely not the “singular” factor driving concern among the general public - thus, "suggest that factors other than public awareness are worthy of consideration when choosing a flagship species". We’re expected to infer that the pangolin does *not* follow the assumed pattern of high public awareness, and the passage fails to address the keystone designation of the species. At this point, the passage has already made the meaning of the term flagship clear, and is not questioning whether the pangolin is deserving of the title “flagship.” Instead, the author uses the example to show that public awareness cannot be the only impacting factor on a species’ success as a flagship endangered species.
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 uses three sets of parentheses in the fourth paragraph in order to
Provide the reader with definitions of the listed items of ecological, aesthetic, and corporeal. Notice that within each set of parentheses is a description of what the word immediately prior to the parenthetical means. For example: aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors) tells the reader that when the author says “aesthetic” she means that part of an animal’s charisma is how it appeals to human emotions. Recognize, also, that this usage fits with what the author is doing in this paragraph: in the previous sentence she mentions that charisma is difficult to measure, and in this sentence she is talking about the factors that need to be considered in measuring charisma. That makes it quite logical that she would use this sentence to further explain what those characteristics mean.
Notice, too, how this fits with our understanding of how to use parentheses, as a way to signal to a reader that the information isn’t essential to the meaning/understanding of a sentence, but could be helpful - that information is optional to read.
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.
Which of the following is an accurate description of why certain animals are referenced in the passage?
The otter is referenced as an example of a keystone species while the panda is referenced as an example of a species with high public awareness. If you return to the passage to find where each animal is mentioned, you’ll see that:
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!
A fossil is most often defined as “the remains of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.” The word fossil is used in the term “technological fossil word” probably in order to
Here, the idea is not that fossil words are talking about actual fossils! We’re talking about terms for dated technology here, not prehistoric organisms! The reason these terms use the word “fossil” is most likely to draw a metaphor between the preservation of fossils and the preservation of these dated words.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
As technology continues to advance, relics of much earlier innovations remain in the terms we use to describe today’s tech. These terms, often referred to as “technological fossil words,” have outlived their meaning, but are still used in conversation today.
Perhaps the most well-known example of a technological fossil word is the term “DJ” or “Disc Jockey.” The term originated in a time when a DJ actually “jockeyed,” the machine playing a disc or record. Nowadays, a Disc Jockey is almost never seen with an actual disc, but the name lives on!
Technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use. When operators of the original phone that coined most of the terms we use today made a call, they would “dial” by turning an actual dial of rotating numbers. When they would “hang up,” they would physically hang the phone up on the wall, at which point the phone's pressure on the latch it hung on would end the call. Even the terms phone line and cell phone refer to aspects of telephone use that no longer apply today.
One of the most interesting and lesser-known of these technological fossil words is the term “soap opera.” Today, this term refers broadly to dramatic television programs. However, the history of the term comes from the radio dramas once sponsored by soap companies to entice housewives listening in during the day to purchase their products.
From typing messages to “pen pals,” to “filming” a video, technological fossil words give us a glimpse into the history behind the tech we use today!
Which of the following provides the best explanation for why the author has chosen to put the word “typing” in italics in paragraph five of the passage?
The author places emphasis on the word typing in paragraph five of the passage to introduce the contrast that the technological fossil term “pen pals” often refers to individuals who do not use pens today, and instead type messages to one another. The author is in no way trying to indicate to use that today’s pen pals aren’t really typing - quite the opposite actually! Nor does the author think this is the most important word in the passage. The author uses the contrast described to show the dated nature of the term “pen pal,” not typing itself! Finally, no definition of the term typing appears later in the text, so the author is assuming readers are comfortable with this word.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
As technology continues to advance, relics of much earlier innovations remain in the terms we use to describe today’s tech. These terms, often referred to as “technological fossil words,” have outlived their meaning, but are still used in conversation today.
Perhaps the most well-known example of a technological fossil word is the term “DJ” or “Disc Jockey.” The term originated in a time when a DJ actually “jockeyed,” the machine playing a disc or record. Nowadays, a Disc Jockey is almost never seen with an actual disc, but the name lives on!
Technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use. When operators of the original phone that coined most of the terms we use today made a call, they would “dial” by turning an actual dial of rotating numbers. When they would “hang up,” they would physically hang the phone up on the wall, at which point the phone's pressure on the latch it hung on would end the call. Even the terms phone line and cell phone refer to aspects of telephone use that no longer apply today.
One of the most interesting and lesser-known of these technological fossil words is the term “soap opera.” Today, this term refers broadly to dramatic television programs. However, the history of the term comes from the radio dramas once sponsored by soap companies to entice housewives listening in during the day to purchase their products.
From typing messages to “pen pals,” to “filming” a video, technological fossil words give us a glimpse into the history behind the tech we use today!
Which of the following is NOT referenced in the passage as an example of a technological fossil term?
Here, we can use process of elimination to see that dial, pen pal, filming, and DJ were all used in the passage as examples of technological fossil words. In fact - the author has left a helpful hint to make that process easier! All the technological fossil words in the passage are written with quotations around them! So, the only term that doesn’t follow that pattern is the term “operators” - our answer to this question! We can also use some critical thinking to see that while people were physically operating a phone in the context of the passage, we no longer truly “dial a phone,” “pen” letters to a pen pal, “film a video” or “jockey a disc.”
Compare your answer with the correct one above
As technology continues to advance, relics of much earlier innovations remain in the terms we use to describe today’s tech. These terms, often referred to as “technological fossil words,” have outlived their meaning, but are still used in conversation today.
Perhaps the most well-known example of a technological fossil word is the term “DJ” or “Disc Jockey.” The term originated in a time when a DJ actually “jockeyed,” the machine playing a disc or record. Nowadays, a Disc Jockey is almost never seen with an actual disc, but the name lives on!
Technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use. When operators of the original phone that coined most of the terms we use today made a call, they would “dial” by turning an actual dial of rotating numbers. When they would “hang up,” they would physically hang the phone up on the wall, at which point the phone's pressure on the latch it hung on would end the call. Even the terms phone line and cell phone refer to aspects of telephone use that no longer apply today.
One of the most interesting and lesser-known of these technological fossil words is the term “soap opera.” Today, this term refers broadly to dramatic television programs. However, the history of the term comes from the radio dramas once sponsored by soap companies to entice housewives listening in during the day to purchase their products.
From typing messages to “pen pals,” to “filming” a video, technological fossil words give us a glimpse into the history behind the tech we use today!
Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence below?
“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.”
Here, the author cites an example of a technological fossil term - a term that is still in use despite the fact that its contextual meaning no longer applies. The author describes how users of older models of the telephone would literally hang the phone up on a device on the wall when a call was ready to be ended to allow the reader to understand why we use the phrase “hang up” the phone today.
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!
According to the meaning of the term “technological fossil word” as described in the passage, which of the following provides an additional example of a technological fossil word, and why?
In this case, we want another example of a term that has lost its literal interpretation, but has remained the common term for a particular element of technology despite this fact. We still say that we need to “rewind” the video, despite the fact that we are no longer winding an actual reel of film. Our other answers make up different types of words that are either no longer in use, or only come into play in sayings, but none of them express terminology that is no longer relevant to the action or term at hand. (Motion picture is a tricky one! It *sounds* dated and old-fashioned, but it technically refers to something that is still the case - a moving picture!)
Compare your answer with the correct one above
When you hear the phrase “man’s best friend,” you probably think of one animal, and one animal alone: the dog. But why is that? How did dogs come to earn the name “man’s best friend,” and why has the name stuck around since?
Many historians trace the relationship between man and dog back more than 30,000 years, to when wolves used to scavenge alongside humans. Other historians cite the point when dogs and people began living together, around 15,000 years ago, as the start to this friendship.
Literature from long ago also references the friendship between man and dog, most famously in Homer’s The Odyssey. However, it wasn’t until the 1700s when King Frederick of Prussia coined the term that dogs were formally given the position “best friend to man.” Frederick referred to his friendship with his dogs in a way that was unusual at the time. While pet dogs were common for those of his rank and stature, they were normally used for hunting and protecting, and it would be considered strange to speak of them as “friends.” Frederick, however, was so fond of his dogs that he had portraits of them painted, spoke often of their loyalty, and even requested that he be buried next to them when he was laid to rest.
It is this strange but enduring relationship with “man’s best friend” that has stood the test of time. Today, dogs are often thought of for their loyalty and companionship. Studies even suggest that a canine companion can increase one’s lifespan, lower cardiovascular disease, and improve mental health. Even if you don’t share Frederick’s opinion that companionship with a dog is the only way to be truly “free of cares,” there’s no arguing that dogs have earned the title “man’s best friend” over the thousands of years they have stood by man’s side.
The author of the passage most likely italicized “The Odyssey” because it
While the appearance of a friendship between man and dog is one of several important examples provided by the author, the italics were used in this context to identify the phrase as a title. This example is far too narrow, and one of too many examples to be considered the “most important” example, or the “main subject” of the passage. The title was put into italics because, well… it’s a title!
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
When schools prepare elective courses for their students (courses that provide an optional list of classes to suit different students’ interests), they should not comply with pressures to make those classes more “practical” or “career driven.” Elective courses should be a way for students to express their creativity and interests in a format they enjoy, and should provide students with a break from the mundane math and English topics they’ve spent the day learning about. Whether it’s painting, photography, dodgeball, or gardening, elective courses should be a way for students to establish and embrace hobbies and interests, a break from an otherwise full day of learning all are subjected to.
Passage 2:
Elective courses provide an opportunity for students to branch out and take different courses from those of their classmates. However, too much emphasis in school has been placed on topics that most students will never use as adults! Most students will not grow up to be artists, or to use the Pythagorean Theorem in their day-to-day lives. So, it’s only logical that elective courses should be focused on life skills students will find helpful as adults, such as personal finance and home economics. It’s never too early to build life skills that will make an individual more well-rounded as an adult!
Passage 3:
Core classes are fighting a losing battle against electives for middle and highschool-aged children. While schools mean well when they encourage students to express their creativity in class, emphasis on elective classes must come at the direct expense of core material. Schools should understand that their job is to prepare children and young adults for the workforce, and should place more emphasis on STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) material. There is currently more demand for STEM workers than there are interested and qualified adults. Therefore, if we place more emphasis on STEM skills for students, we will encourage interest in the jobs most needed when those children grow up and plan for their careers.
Which of the following best expresses why the author of Passage 2 chose to include the Pythagorean Theorem as an example?
The author of Passage 2 claims that “too much emphasis in school has been placed on topics that most students will never use as adults,” and then goes on to use art and the Pythagorean Theorem as examples of skills that are taught in school despite the fact that they are rarely necessary for adults to apply. So, the author is giving an example of a concept taught in school that is - according to the author - not often used by most adults. The sentence in question even goes on to reinforce that purpose by referring to the Pythagorean Theorem as a concept not commonly used by adults in their day-to-day lives. Incorrect answers to this question either emphasize a different passage’s perspective (D&E), contrast the use of the example "To appeal to readers interested in math", or make too much of a generalization to be the correct answer "To show that math is not a useful topic to learn in school". After all, the author is not claiming that adults never have use for any math, just that the Pythagorean Theorem specifically is not a common mathematics tool applied by the average adult.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from Pinocchio by Carl Collodi (1883)
There was once upon a time a piece of wood in the shop of an old carpenter named Master Antonio. Everybody, however, called him Master Cherry, on account of the end of his nose, which was always as red and polished as a ripe cherry.
No sooner had Master Cherry set eyes on the piece of wood than his face beamed with delight, and, rubbing his hands together with satisfaction, he said softly to himself:
"This wood has come at the right moment; it will just do to make the leg of a little table."
He immediately took a sharp axe with which to remove the bark and the rough surface, but just as he was going to give the first stroke he heard a very small voice say imploringly, "Do not strike me so hard!"
He turned his terrified eyes all around the room to try and discover where the little voice could possibly have come from, but he saw nobody! He looked under the bench—nobody; he looked into a cupboard that was always shut—nobody; he looked into a basket of shavings and sawdust—nobody; he even opened the door of the shop and gave a glance into the street—and still nobody. Who, then, could it be?
"I see how it is," he said, laughing and scratching his wig, "evidently that little voice was all my imagination. Let us set to work again."
And, taking up the axe, he struck a tremendous blow on the piece of wood.
"Oh! oh! you have hurt me!" cried the same little voice dolefully.
This time Master Cherry was petrified. His eyes started out of his head with fright, his mouth remained open, and his tongue hung out almost to the end of his chin, like a mask on a fountain. As soon as he had recovered the use of his speech he began to say, stuttering and trembling with fear:
"But where on earth can that little voice have come from that said 'Oh! oh!'? Is it possible that this piece of wood can have learned to cry and to lament like a child? I cannot believe it. This piece of wood is nothing but a log for fuel like all the others, and thrown on the fire it would about suffice to boil a saucepan of beans. How then? Can anyone be hidden inside it? If anyone is hidden inside, so much the worse for him. I will settle him at once."
So saying, he seized the poor piece of wood and commenced beating it without mercy against the walls of the room.
Then he stopped to listen if he could hear any little voice lamenting. He waited two minutes—nothing; five minutes—nothing; ten minutes—still nothing!
"I see how it is," he then said, forcing himself to laugh, and pushing up his wig; "evidently the little voice that said 'Oh! oh!' was all my imagination! Let us set to work again."
Putting the axe aside, he took his plane, to plane and polish the bit of wood; but whilst he was running it up and down he heard the same little voice say, laughing:
"Stop! you are tickling me all over!"
This time poor Master Cherry fell down as if he had been struck by lightning. When he at last opened his eyes he found himself seated on the floor.
His face was changed, even the end of his nose, instead of being crimson, as it was nearly always, had become blue from fright.
Why did everyone refer to Master Antonio as "Master Cherry"?
We are introduced to Master Antonio in the first paragraph in the passage, and we learn how he received his nickname:
"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."
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
Why, after the narrator mentions Luchesi, does Fortunato agree to go with the narrator?
Let's take a look at the moment in the story at which this exchange takes place. The narrator has told Fortunato about having acquired "a pipe of what passes for Amontillado."
“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.”
Remembering one more detail from earlier in the story helps to ground this conversation: at the start of the third paragraph, we're told by the narrator, "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." What meaning does all of this allow us to make from the above conversation, specifically about how Fortunato reacts to hearing Luchresi mentioned? Well, the narrator is talking about not being sure that the amontillado he has purchased is actually amontillado. He mentions that he "was silly enough to pay the full Amontillado price without consulting you in the matter." This tells us a few things: real amontillado is expensive, and the narrator would normally have consulted Fortunato before purchasing amontillado. Why is that? Presumably to make sure that he's purchasing real amontillado. After this part of the conversation, the narrator adds, "As you are engaged, I am on my way to Luchresi. If any one has a critical turn it is he." Here, we see that the narrator has turned to Luchresi for help in identifying if the amontillado is real or not. To this, Fortunato replies, "Luchresi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry." After insulting Luchresi's expertise, Fortunato tells the narrator that they are going to the narrator's vaults, presumably to ascertain the authenticity of the amontillado. What would motivate Fortunato to do this? We know that he "pride\[s\]" himself on his knowledge of wine, so hearing the narrator say that he is going to rely on someone else's expertise is enough to make Fortunato defensive. He wants to be the expert the narrator consults, so he jumps in and interrupts the narrator's working with Luchresi. Based on this reasoning, we can confidently answer that "Fortunato desires to prove himself more knowledgeable than Luchresi."
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.
According to what the poem directly states, what effect does the narrator’s going to look at the stars have on him?
This question requires you to read the poem very carefully. It actually focuses on one particular word! As you start to answer it, you need to orient yourself in the poem: where should you look for the answer? You're being asked about the effect of the narrator's going out to look at the stars, so you know that the answer will be found in the latter part of the poem, not in the first part where the narrator is interacting with the astronomer. After the narrator listens to the astronomer,
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 narrator relates how he feels "tired and sick" in line 5, so our answer has to come after that, since it's the cause and the answer is the effect. The narrator certainly doesn't give any indication that he wants to return to the lecture-room, and he doesn't lose interest in the stars altogether. It's listening to the astronomer that seems to have made him feel "tired and sick," not going out to look at the stars, so that's not the correct answer either. Does looking at the stars make the narrator very happy? You might expect this, but the poem doesn't say anything of the sort, and we need to stick to what the poem actually says, as per the question stem. You can identify the correct answer by noticing the word "Till" that begins line 6. "Till" is another way of saying "until." The narrator tells us that he felt tired and sick until he went out to look at the stars by himself. This allows us to infer that looking at the stars helps the narrator feel better (less tired and sick), which is the correct answer.
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.
Howell’s story is different from that of Mr. Trouvelot’s in that __________.
According to the passage, what did Howell do? He was caught skinning bison in Yellowstone National Park and there was no way to punish him, a point about which the author is frustrated. What did Mr. Trouvelot do? He accidentally released gypsy moths into the United States, where they’ve caused a lot of trouble since. Nothing in the passage says that Mr. Trouvelot worked in a group, so we can eliminate the answer “Howell acted alone while Mr. Trouvelot worked with a group.” Similarly, while the passage says that Mr. Trouvelot was a scientist (an entomologist), it only says that Howell's acts took place in Yellowstone Park, not that he worked there, so “Howell worked for a park while Trouvelot was a scientist” can’t be correct. The author brings up Howell’s story as an example of someone who couldn’t be punished by law for what the author considers an egregiously bad act, so “Howell could be punished by law, while Mr. Trouvelot could not” can’t be correct either. Howell’s story has nothing to do with insects and Mr. Trouvelot released his gypsy moths on accident, so “Howell sought to capture insects while Trouvelot sought to release them” cannot be the correct answer. This leaves us with one answer choice, the correct one: “Howell acted purposely while Trouvelot introduced the moths by accident.”
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.
The author compares the methods of collecting duck feathers and down in Iceland and in North America in the passage. Which of the following is the most significant effect of this comparison on the rest of the passage?
How does the author describe the Icelandic method of collecting eider down? The author interrupts his story about the demand for feathers in North America to contrast it against the Iceland, saying that the North American method "did not tend to conserve and protect the source of supply." He goes on to note that the Icelandic people do not “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs," and instead, receive a renewable income based on down they collect every year. By protecting the ducks, they encourage them to trust people and make down collection easier.
Notice that this is the first method we hear about in the passage, even though the start of the passage only concerns North America (New England, specifically). After hearing about the Icelandic method first, the reader has in his or her mind that this method is one option for collecting feathers. It treats the ducks well and results in a renewable resource. At this point, the author steps back to talking about the North American feather-collection method, drawing a sharp contrast: "In North America, quite a different policy was pursued." He then describes the Labrador feather voyages and uses language that encourages the reader to pity and empathize with (feel for) the ducks: "the birds became the victims of the ships’ crews," the author claims, and later, he describes how "the hunters were able to surround the helpless birds, drive them together, and kill them with clubs." Notice how he uses the words "victims" and "helpless." In the last paragraph, we learn that the Labrador duck has gone extinct, due to causes the author relates to the feather voyages.
This description leaves readers with a very sour impression of the North American method of collecting feathers. The author's description emphasizes its violence and cruelty, and the fact that he describes the peaceful Icelandic method immediately before makes it look like such violence might have been avoided, playing it up even further. The contrast the author creates does not make the Icelandic method seem "old-fashioned" as much as it makes the North American method look "needlessly violent and inhumane." That is the best answer.
Compare your answer with the correct one above