Card 0 of 200
Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.
The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed its “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance, has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor.
Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.
Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans), aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.
In the context of the passage, the word “fauna” in paragraph one most nearly means
Here, the paragraph speaks about the role of flagship species in the conservation of animals. Thus, using context, we can conclude that the word “fauna” must mean animal. While the paragraph as a whole speaks about conservation and ends with the phrase “as a whole,” it would not make sense to take out the word “fauna” and replace it with any of the options other than "animal".
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)
He was a very silent man by custom. All day he hung round the cove or upon the cliffs with a brass telescope; all evening he sat in a corner of the parlor next the fire and drank rum and water very strong. Mostly he would not speak when spoken to, only look up sudden and fierce and blow through his nose like a fog-horn; and we and the people who came about our house soon learned to let him be. Every day when he came back from his stroll he would ask if any seafaring men had gone by along the road.
I was far less afraid of the captain than anybody else who knew him. There were nights when he would sometimes sit and sing his wicked, old, wild sea-songs, minding nobody; but sometimes he would call for glasses round and force all the trembling company to listen to his stories or bear a chorus to his singing. His stories were what frightened people worst of all. Dreadful stories they were—about hanging, and walking the plank, and storms at sea, and the Dry Tortugas, and wild deeds and places on the Spanish Main. By his own account he must have lived his life among some of the wickedest men upon the sea, and the language in which he told these stories shocked our plain country people almost as much as the crimes that he described. My father was always saying the inn would be ruined, for people would soon cease coming there to be tyrannized over and put down, and sent shivering to their beds; but I really believe his presence did us good. People were frightened at the time, but on looking back they rather liked it; it was a fine excitement in a quiet country life, and there was even a party of the younger men who pretended to admire him, calling him a "true sea-dog" and a "real old salt" and such like names, and saying there was the sort of man that made England terrible at sea.
What effect does the underlined selection have on the story?
The underlined excerpt is this:
My father was always saying the inn would be ruined, for people would soon cease coming there to be tyrannized over and put down, and sent shivering to their beds; but I really believe his presence did us good. People were frightened at the time, but on looking back they rather liked it; it was a fine excitement in a quiet country life . . .
This excerpt immediately follows the narrator's description of how the sailor staying at his family's inn would scare the other visitors by singing "wild sea-songs" or "forc\[ing\] all the trembling company to listen to his stories or bear a chorus to his singing." We're told in specific that "his stories frightened people most of all." Then, after some detail about what the stories concerned, the excerpt appears. In it, the narrator's father sees the sailor's actions as a bad influence on the popularity of the inn. This is a negative way of looking at the stay of the sailor and his actions. The narrator's point of view is different, though: he disagrees, as we can see with the underlined sentence turning on the conjunction "but". The narrator thinks that "\[the sailor's\] presence did us good" because even though other patrons were scared of being around the sailor, "on looking back they rather liked it; it was a fine excitement in a quiet country life."
The best answer can't be "It explains why the narrator's father likes the guest so much" because the underlined sentence tells us that the narrator's father does not like the sailor. Furthermore, the best answer can't be "It introduces new details explaining why the narrator is eager to see the sailor leave" because the narrator likes the excitement the sailor brings to the inn; we can't claim that he's eager to see him leave. The excerpt doesn't introduce a new character, nor does it "\[explain\] why the guest is so unlike the rest of the local population." This latter answer is a bit tricky, because the excerpt presents two perspectives on the fact that the sailor is so different from the local population; however, that's not what the excerpt is about, it's the subject of the sentences that come before the underlined one. The best answer is "It allows the narrative to turn from a negative to a positive perspective on the guest's stay." The underlined sentence presents the perspective of the narrator's father first, and he wants the sailor to leave because he's worried about other guests being driven away by his strange antics. That's the negative perspective; it then turns to the positive perspective of the narrator, who thinks the sailor's behavior is exciting.
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 AmonAftillado 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
What does the reader learn in the first three paragraphs that creates suspense for the rest of the passage?
This story can be pretty confusing because of the way it dramatically shifts topics. For the first three paragraphs, the narrator tells the reader how he wants to get revenge on Fortunato because Fortunato went too far in insulting him somehow. (We never learn just what it is Fortunato did that made the narrator so mad at him.) The narrator calmly explains that he thinks the best revenge is total in nature ("I must not only punish but punish with impunity.") and that it takes place when the person taking revenge is revealed to the person receiving it ("It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong.") We then learn that the narrator has given Fortunato no clue that he is seeking revenge against him. Readers get the idea that this revenge is going to be extremely severe when the author uses the word "immolation," a very strong word, to describe it: "I continued, as was my wont, to smile in his face, and he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of his immolation."
After this, the narrator explains that Fortunato has a weakness—he prides himself on being a wine expert. This is the "weak point" that the narrator will make use of in enacting his revenge. After this, we jump to the events of the story, during a carnival, when the narrator runs into Fortunato and tells him about a cask of amontillado he has obtained. So, what do we learn in the first three paragraphs that makes this interaction suspenseful? We're waiting to see how the narrator enacts his revenge, and if Fortunato can escape the narrator's plot or realize that the narrator has ulterior motives. "Fortunato insulted the narrator" might look like a good answer choice, but we wouldn't be reading a very long story if the narrator simply forgave Fortunato for insulting him. Instead, the narrator is out for revenge, and it's this realization that gives the suspenseful heft to the rest of the action that follows. If we didn't know this, we wouldn't be able to realize that the narrator isn't earnest in his interaction with Fortunato and has other plans in mind in order to get revenge. "The narrator wants to punish Fortunato" is the answer that encapsulates this.
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
"Fortunato" means fortunate or lucky in Italian. Why is this an ironic choice of name for the character Fortunato in Poe's story?
Much of this story's potency derives from its use of irony. Simply put, irony occurs when what the reader sees or is led to expect is very different from or the opposite of what turns out to be the case. In this case, the name "Fortunato" sounds like it should refer to a character who is in some way fortunate or lucky; however, the choice of name is ironic because that's not what we as readers get from the story. We can immediately knock out the answer choices "Only the audience knows that Fortunato is lucky; the narrator has no idea of this" and "Fortunato is lucky to run into the narrator at random during the carnival" because if we expect Fortunato to be lucky and he is lucky, that's not ironic at all. How is Fortunato not as lucky as we expect him to be in this story? Well, the narrator is out to get revenge on him, and he has absolutely no idea of this in the passage that we read. That's not very lucky at all! "Fortunato is not lucky because he has not been able to prove himself more intelligent than Luchesi" isn't correct because we have no evidence that this is true, and "Fortunato is not lucky because it is the narrator, not he, who obtained the amontillado" isn't correct either. This is a lack of luck, but we the irony is created by expecting good luck for the character and seeing him receive terrible luck. The narrator is out to get revenge on Fortunato, but Fortunato doesn't know that he's about to be a victim of the narrator's plotting. That's pretty terrible luck! "Fortunato is not lucky because he is oblivious to the grave danger that he is in" 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.
How does the author feel about Howell?
Let’s look at the part of the first paragraph in which the author brings up Howell, paying attention to why he does so:
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!
In mentioning Howell, the author is providing an example supporting his argument that harsher legal penalties are necessary for those who harm the environment. The author describes Howell as a “poacher” who “destroyed our first national bison herd” and was “caught red-handed.” From this, we can tell that the best answer choice is “the author greatly dislikes Howell for his audacious disrespect for nature.”
One of the other answer choices attempts to get you to confuse Howell with Mr. Trouvelot, who released the gypsy moths—don’t fall for that! Check the passage if you are worried at all about confusing the two so you can avoid pitfall answers like that one.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from "Save the Redwoods" by John Muir in Sierra Club Bulletin Volume XI Number 1 (January 1920)
Forty-seven years ago one of these Calaveras King Sequoias was laboriously cut down, that the stump might be had for a dancing-floor. Another, one of the finest in the grove, was skinned alive to a height of one hundred and sixteen feet and the bark sent to London to show how fine and big that Calaveras tree was—as sensible a scheme as skinning our great men would be to prove their greatness. Now some millmen want to cut all the Calaveras trees into lumber and money. No doubt these trees would make good lumber after passing through a sawmill, as George Washington after passing through the hands of a French cook would have made good food. But both for Washington and the tree that bears his name higher uses have been found.
Could one of these Sequoia Kings come to town in all its godlike majesty so as to be strikingly seen and allowed to plead its own cause, there would never again be any lack of defenders. And the same may be said of all the other Sequoia groves and forests of the Sierra with their companions and the noble Sequoia sempervirens, or redwood, of the coast mountains.
In these noble groves and forests to the southward of the Calaveras Grove the axe and saw have long been busy, and thousands of the finest Sequoias have been felled, blasted into manageable dimensions, and sawed into lumber by methods destructive almost beyond belief, while fires have spread still wider and more lamentable ruin. In the course of my explorations twenty-five years ago, I found five sawmills located on or near the lower margin of the Sequoia belt, all of which were cutting more or less \[Sequoia gigantea\] lumber, which looks like the redwood of the coast, and was sold as redwood. One of the smallest of these mills in the season of 1874 sawed two million feet of Sequoia lumber. Since that time other mills have been built among the Sequoias, notably the large ones on Kings River and the head of the Fresno. The destruction of these grand trees is still going on.
Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot defend themselves or run away. And few destroyers of trees ever plant any; nor can planting avail much toward restoring our grand aboriginal giants. It took more than three thousand years to make some of the oldest of the Sequoias, trees that are still standing in perfect strength and beauty, waving and singing in the mighty forests of the Sierra.
At one point in the first paragraph, the author makes a concession to his opponents, telling the reader that they are correct about some aspect of the debate at hand. Which of the following most accurately describes this concession?
To answer this question, we'll need to identify the concession that the author makes in the first paragraph. At what point does the author admit that the people he's arguing against are right about something?
Forty-seven years ago one of these Calaveras King Sequoias was laboriously cut down, that the stump might be had for a dancing-floor. Another, one of the finest in the grove, was skinned alive to a height of one hundred and sixteen feet and the bark sent to London to show how fine and big that Calaveras tree was—as sensible a scheme as skinning our great men would be to prove their greatness. Now some millmen want to cut all the Calaveras trees into lumber and money. No doubt these trees would make good lumber after passing through a sawmill, as George Washington after passing through the hands of a French cook would have made good food. But both for Washington and the tree that bears his name higher uses have been found.
The only time the author says that his opponents are correct is when he states, "No doubt these trees would make good lumber after passing through a sawmill." After this, he continues, "as George Washington after passing through the hands of a French cook would have made good food." The end of that sentence makes the idea of using Sequoia trees for lumber look like a horrifying and terrible idea. Which answer choice reflects this? The best answer is "The author agrees with the opposition only to set up for a comparison that makes the idea of using Sequoia trees for lumber look shockingly ridiculous and disgusting."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1
It’s a great time to be green! Environmentally friendly practices have become very popular with shoppers. Business owners can capitalize on this trend by accurately advertising how their products are good for the environment, such as by using recycled materials.
Many shoppers associate the color green with sustainability. So, consider using eye-catching green details on your products when describing how they help the environment. You may want to incorporate symbols of nature into your advertising as well. Popular symbols associated with sustainability include leaves, trees, and flowers. These details may not seem important, but they are. The visual way in which a sustainability claim is made can make the difference between a shopper trying your product or leaving it on the shelf.
Some people want to regulate sustainability claims. This is a bad idea. Increased regulation would be an unnecessary burden on businesses. It would slow the time it takes them to adapt to trends. If every advertising decision had to be approved by a regulating body, a lot of time would be wasted. Just think how ridiculous it would be if you wanted to use a blue logo instead of a red one and had to fill out paperwork approving that decision! The threat of increased regulation is all the more reason to emphasize the greenness of your products today.
Passage 2
Environmentalism has become very popular lately. As a result, many products are emphasizing “green” status—that is, how they help protect the environment. This trend has been accompanied by an ugly shadow: “greenwashing.” “Greenwashing” is the practice of making false claims about a product’s sustainability. Companies can say that a product is “greener” than it really is. These false claims are made so that the product can appeal to shoppers.
As a result, shoppers have become less confident about all sustainability claims. There’s no way to tell from packaging and advertisements if a product is actually helping the environment or just claiming to do so. And it’s not easy to research products in the aisles of a supermarket or department store! It’s certainly extra work that many shoppers won’t do. Instead, they ignore “green” claims completely.
Competition and “greenwashing” have also encouraged companies to prioritize appearing green over actually being green. As a result, money is spent on making products appear to be something they are not instead of on actually improving the products and making them more sustainable.
So, what can we do? We need to start by regulating sustainability claims. This way, consumers can be confident that claims they see are true, since false claims would not be allowed on packaging. This will be a step in the right direction.
Passage 1 directly responds to an opposing argument by presenting which of the following points as evidence?
We can make this question a lot simpler if we first identify where in Passage 1 a counterargument is addressed. There is only one part of the entire passage in which the passage addresses an opposing argument: the third paragraph, shown below.
Some people want to regulate sustainability claims. This is a bad idea. Increased regulation would be an unnecessary burden on businesses. It would slow the time it takes them to adapt to trends. If every advertising decision had to be approved by a regulating body, a lot of time would be wasted. Just think how ridiculous it would be if you wanted to use a blue logo instead of a red one and had to fill out paperwork approving that decision! The threat of increased regulation is all the more reason to emphasize the greenness of your products today.
Let's analyze this paragraph a bit: the argument that the passage opposes is the regulation of sustainability claims. The paragraph presents the argument in its first sentence: "Some people want to regulate sustainability claims." After this, it immediately opposes this view, stating, "This is a bad idea." It is at this particular point that we need to look for the evidence that the passage presents as to why the claim it opposes is incorrect—that is, why it is a bad idea to regulate sustainability claims. The passage says, "Increased regulation would be an unnecessary burden on businesses. It would slow the time it takes them to adapt to trends." This is all we need to answer the question! These sentences present the idea summarized in the answer choice "Increased regulation will result in businesses reacting more slowly to market patterns." This is the correct answer!
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Encouraging the participation of video games in children and teenagers is a dangerous practice. These video games are often violent and thus promote violence in everyday life. Such games have also been shown to encourage violence and anger problems in those already inclined toward violence. At an age at which it is important to foster cooperation among classmates and build friendships, the isolation that comes with excessive gaming makes students more likely to enter conflicts with other students and harms their ability to socialize.
Video games have also been shown to be addictive. This trait makes gaming all the more dangerous, as an exclusive focus on any one hobby can leave children without a well-rounded set of interests and skills. Those playing video games would benefit from other extracurriculars, such as arts or athletics. When children spend all their time playing video games, that leaves less time for more-productive tasks like joining a sport, learning to play an instrument, or picking up other more beneficial hobbies. Parents would be wise to discourage their children from playing video games and instead suggest they pick up a more constructive hobby.
Passage 2:
Video games are often (and unfairly) blamed for negatively impacting children, but in reality, they offer many benefits to those who choose “gaming” as a hobby. Studies show that children who play video games improve their motor skills, reasoning ability, and creative problem-solving when they do so. Additionally, evidence shows us that many find playing video games to be a way to socialize with friends and even build leadership skills, including how to delegate, work as a team, and prioritize tasks. Some have even linked these higher-order thinking skills to career success down the road.
People who would villainize gaming claim that violent games make kids more violent. However, there is little, if any, evidence to show any connection between actions performed in a simulated game and tendencies in real life. In fact, many report that they find playing such games to be stress-relieving, and say that these activities positively impact their mood.
While it is important to limit kids’ daily consumption of any hobby, video games can be a great way to encourage their creative problem solving, leadership, and other valuable life skills!
Which of the following statements would the author of passage two most likely disagree with?
Here, we want to find an answer choice that conflicts with a statement made by the author of passage two. Although the author of passage two is generally in favor of video games for children, the author also cites that “it is important to limit kids’ daily consumption of any hobby.” Given this statement, the author would not agree with the claim that children should be allowed to play video games as often and as long as they’d like. If we look to our wrong answers, all have cited evidence that the author of passage two would agree with the claim. In the close of paragraph three, the author cites creative problem solving and leadership as valuable skills (eliminating "Creative problem solving and leadership are valuable skills "), in paragraph two, the author uses the fact that video games have been shown to relieve stress and improve moods to advocate for their use. So, it seems the author thinks these are important (and we can eliminate "Students should have an outlet to relieve stress and improve their moods"). The author cites constructive elements of video games throughout the passage (so, we can eliminate "Video games, when played in moderation, can be a constructive hobby"), and once again, the fact that “some have even linked these higher-order thinking skills to succeed in jobs down the road,” is cited as an advantage (so, "It can be valuable to take time in a child’s free time to build skills that will be helpful to that child later in life" is out too!).
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
Encouraging the participation of video games in children and teenagers is a dangerous practice. These video games are often violent and thus promote violence in everyday life. Such games have also been shown to encourage violence and anger problems in those already inclined toward violence. At an age at which it is important to foster cooperation among classmates and build friendships, the isolation that comes with excessive gaming makes students more likely to enter conflicts with other students and harms their ability to socialize.
Video games have also been shown to be addictive. This trait makes gaming all the more dangerous, as an exclusive focus on any one hobby can leave children without a well-rounded set of interests and skills. Those playing video games would benefit from other extracurriculars, such as arts or athletics. When children spend all their time playing video games, that leaves less time for more-productive tasks like joining a sport, learning to play an instrument, or picking up other more beneficial hobbies. Parents would be wise to discourage their children from playing video games and instead suggest they pick up a more constructive hobby.
Passage 2:
Video games are often (and unfairly) blamed for negatively impacting children, but in reality, they offer many benefits to those who choose “gaming” as a hobby. Studies show that children who play video games improve their motor skills, reasoning ability, and creative problem-solving when they do so. Additionally, evidence shows us that many find playing video games to be a way to socialize with friends and even build leadership skills, including how to delegate, work as a team, and prioritize tasks. Some have even linked these higher-order thinking skills to career success down the road.
People who would villainize gaming claim that violent games make kids more violent. However, there is little, if any, evidence to show any connection between actions performed in a simulated game and tendencies in real life. In fact, many report that they find playing such games to be stress-relieving, and say that these activities positively impact their mood.
While it is important to limit kids’ daily consumption of any hobby, video games can be a great way to encourage their creative problem solving, leadership, and other valuable life skills!
Which of the following best expresses how the author of passage two might describe video games?
In this question, we need both terms to align with the author’s perspective. In the passage, the author acknowledges that video games are deemed controversial (different people have very strong, very different opinions concerning them). The author also seems to have an overall positive impression of video games, but notes that any activity in excess can be negatively impactful. These elements of tone in the passage all align with “Controversial but helpful in moderation.” For several of our other answer choices, one of the two terms might align, but not both. The author might find video games to be enjoyable, and certainly cites them as skill-building, but would not refer to them as isolating or excessively risky. In fact, the author cites how video games can be social and team-building for children. The author would also be unlikely to describe video games as negatively impactful - in fact, the passage cites that it is “unfair” that they have been deemed negatively impactful by some. Finally, the author would be unlikely to consider video games nefarious (evil or criminal). That last vocab word is a little hefty - but if you use context, you can see that “nefarious” should contrast “positively perceived,” and should carry some negative context. So, even without complete knowledge of the word - we can see that “positively perceived but nefarious” is problematic on both counts!
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.
The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor.
Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.
Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans), aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.
How would the author of the passage be most likely to describe the charisma designation system introduced in the passage?
While terms like “only” and “flawless” are too extreme for the scenario at hand (we’re given existing drawbacks, and are told that the other two cited designations are still also in use by experts), if we correctly organize the three designations presented in the passage, we can see that the charisma designation is the one most commonly accepted and primarily applied by today’s conservation experts.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.
The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor.
Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.
Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans), aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.
Which of the following methods would the author of the passage be most likely to advocate for when selecting a flagship species?
According to the author, the charisma designation system is currently the most complete and accurate way to determine a flagship species. So, we want the answer that aligns with this designation. “Using a feedback system to select an endangered animal that people find pleasant to interact with, easy to emotionally connect with, and able to socialize with” describes the three components that makeup charisma according to the passage (ecological, aesthetic, and corporeal,) and addresses the system advocated for by the author of the passage.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.
The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor.
Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public.
Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans), aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.
How would the author of the passage be most likely to describe the “keystone species” designation referenced in paragraph three?
In the passage, the keystone species designation was one of the earlier designation systems that the author shows might be limited in the “singularity and the extent to which \[they\] impact the decision making of the general public.” So, the author cites that the metric is helpful, especially “to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received,” but plays a more minor role in the motivations of the public, particularly as compared to the charisma designation system mentioned in the following paragraph.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
School-age children are filled with curiosity and seek to discover new and exciting things every day! So, it is silly to assume that a child would not appreciate the faraway places and times of classics by Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Shakespeare. Regardless of the child’s age, if he or she can break down the structure of Shakespeare’s sonnets or the satire of Dickens’s episodics, there is no reason such a child should have to wait until the later part of his or her schooling to enjoy such works. In fact, limiting younger children to writing consisting only of relatable elementary- and middle-school topics such as going to school, overcoming bullying, and growing up only acts to stifle the curiosity that could otherwise be strengthened by the wonder of classic literature.
Passage 2:
There is no simpler way to drive children away from reading than to fill their arms and their reading lists with dense, boring novels full of language and topics they find unrelatable and difficult to understand. Allow a child to find his love for reading through books that he can relate to and he will hold onto that appreciation of reading for a lifetime. Force him to know only difficult constructions and dated language when he reads, and you’ll be sure to chase him away from the hobby entirely! By allowing children to read about what they find interesting, or what they can relate to, whether it’s the common challenges faced making friends in school or the wonder of talking animals and superheroes, you build the foundation for a love of reading that will eventually make its way to the classic literature adult readers have come to embrace.
How would the author of Passage 2 be most likely to describe “The Grapes of Wrath,” a classic 1939 novel by John Steinbeck?
While the author of Passage 2 cautions readers that having children read complicated classics written primarily for adults can sometimes leave those children less enthusiastic about learning, the author also cites the importance of such novels, calling such novels “literature adult readers have come to embrace.” So, the author of Passage 2 would consider a classic novel like “The Grapes of Wrath” important to the field of literature, but potentially too advanced for young children.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Passage 1:
School-age children are filled with curiosity and seek to discover new and exciting things every day! So, it is silly to assume that a child would not appreciate the faraway places and times of classics by Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Shakespeare. Regardless of the child’s age, if he or she can break down the structure of Shakespeare’s sonnets or the satire of Dickens’s episodics, there is no reason such a child should have to wait until the later part of his or her schooling to enjoy such works. In fact, limiting younger children to writing consisting only of relatable elementary- and middle-school topics such as going to school, overcoming bullying, and growing up only acts to stifle the curiosity that could otherwise be strengthened by the wonder of classic literature.
Passage 2:
There is no simpler way to drive children away from reading than to fill their arms and their reading lists with dense, boring novels full of language and topics they find unrelatable and difficult to understand. Allow a child to find his love for reading through books that he can relate to and he will hold onto that appreciation of reading for a lifetime. Force him to know only difficult constructions and dated language when he reads, and you’ll be sure to chase him away from the hobby entirely! By allowing children to read about what they find interesting, or what they can relate to, whether it’s the common challenges faced making friends in school or the wonder of talking animals and superheroes, you build the foundation for a love of reading that will eventually make its way to the classic literature adult readers have come to embrace.
What novel would the author of Passage 1 be most likely to suggest that teachers add to a student reading list and why?
The author of Passage 1 uses the passage to assert that children would benefit from the mystery of “ faraway places and times” expressed in classic literature, even if that literature is not specifically designed for children. So, the author might be likely to suggest a classic such as “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” because it is a classic novel that could spark young readers’ curiosity about adventure and discovery. All the remaining titles and explanations appeal to priorities mentioned by the author of Passage 2, rather than the author of Passage 1. (*note - you don’t need to be familiar with the titles to answer this question correctly! We can use context and the explanation to narrow down to the correct answer!)
Compare your answer with the correct one above
When you hear the word “pirate,” you likely think of names such as Blackbeard or Henry Morgan. However, there exists a vast and interesting history of lesser-known pirates who have also shaped the term as we know it, and this history is just as deserving of our attention.
For instance, in the fifteenth century, the pirate Pier Gerlofs Donia, better known as “Big Pier,” fought tirelessly against the Roman Empire and intimidated even the most fierce soldiers with the seven-foot long sword he wielded, known as the “Zweihander.” When his crew captured a suspected enemy ship, he was known to determine friend from foe by forcing them to say: “Butter, bread, and green cheese: if you can’t say that, you’re not a real Frisian!” in his native tongue, as this was often difficult for enemies to pronounce correctly. Enemies who were unable to do so were sentenced to their doom!
Seventeenth-century dutch pirate Laurens de Graaf is also an interesting story. While he is best known for his ship, the Tigre, and for evading capture and disappearing into mystery and myth, he was supposedly an interesting pirate to work for! Known as the “gentleman’s outlaw,” de Graff would travel the seas with an arrangement of violins and trumpets, which he would play for his crew to keep spirits high.
Samuel Bellamy’s life poses yet another interesting, though ultimately tragic, story. When treasure hunter Bellamy found it difficult to make a living, he turned to piracy. Bellamy was known as a just captain and even formed a democracy on his ship, earning the trust and respect of his men. Bellamy was also known as the wealthiest pirate ever, and in the short year or so that he roamed the seas, he acquired over $120 million in treasure. This wealth would be short-lived, however, as Bellamy and his ship sank to the bottom of the deep blue on their way back from the heist that would have allowed his entire crew to retire and live out the rest of their lives in peace.
It is true that many of the icons we see in today’s movies, novels, and costumes come from some of history’s most well-known pirates. Nevertheless, those interested in knowing the full history and culture of what we know as “piracy” today should seek out the stories behind some of the world’s lesser-known tyrants of the sea.
The author of this passage would most likely describe Samuel Bellamy as
In the passage, Samuel Bellamy is described as a just (fair) pirate, well-liked by his crew. The author also points out the irony that his ship did not make it back from their final and most profitable voyage, but does not give us any reason to believe this is because of foolishness on his part. Contextually, Bellamy is one of three pirates used as examples of lesser-known pirates and their importance to the history of piracy as a whole. So, the author would likely consider Bellamy to be “important to the history of pirates, despite his short-lived career .”
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 Fredrick 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.” Fredrick, 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.
How would the author of the passage be most likely to characterize the role of King Fredrick of Prussia in the context of the passage?
The author of the passage uses the history of King Fredrick of Prussia to show the first recorded instance where a dog was referred to as “best friend” to man. - Be careful! That’s different from saying “the first documented instance of companionship between man and dog” We see several earlier instances of companionship between man and dog that build the foundation for the interactions we see today. However, the author would certainly consider King Fredrick of Prussia’s role as “a core element” of that history.
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 more valuable 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.
If a particular student finds baking to be a relaxing and exciting hobby, would the author of Passage 1 be likely to recommend that that student take a home economics class focused on baking?
The author of Passage 1 believes that elective courses should provide students with opportunities to pursue passions and hobbies that they find relaxing during an otherwise taxing school day. So, the author would likely advocate for the scenario described above, as the student is pursuing a home economics class to participate in something he or she enjoys and finds relaxing. This is completely aligned with Passage 1’s stated objective for elective courses: “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.”
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.
The main reason the author mentions Howell’s story at the end of the first paragraph is __________.
This question may initially seem tricky because Howell’s story accomplishes many of the answer choices’ statements: the author does attack Howell’s actions as reprehensible, and he does lament the loss of the United States’ first national bison herd; however, this are consequences of the story, not reasons why the author brought it up in the first place. The only answer choice that explains why the author mentions the story is “to provide an account that shows how bad it is that environmental offenders cannot be legally punished,” so this is the correct answer.
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.
Which of the following most accurately describes the role of the underlined sentence, also shown below?
“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 underlined sentence compares the eider duck with the Labrador duck, as we can tell from the sentence that precedes it:
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.
We can immediately determine that this sentence does not "suggest that the effect a method of feather-collecting has on a duck species is unique to that particular species." It is comparing, not contrasting, the two types of duck and suggesting that if the eider duck had the same breeding range as the Labrador duck, that it would also have gone extinct. Similarly, we can ignore "It suggests that Labrador ducks are hardier and healthier than eider ducks" and "It suggests that the down of eider ducks is more valuable than the feathers of Labrador ducks." Both of these answers again suggest that the passage is emphasizing some sort of distinction when it is actually emphasizing a similarity. "It tells readers for the first time in the passage that collecting duck feathers can be dangerous to the ducks depending on the method used to collect the feathers" is not correct either, because this is certainly not the first time this idea has been presented to readers in the passage. The entire third paragraph details how millions of ducks were killed for their feathers on the Labrador feather voyages. The only remaining answer is the correct one: this sentence "subtly revisits the comparison between the Icelandic and North American methods of collecting feathers and down." Eider ducks are discussed when the author describes the Icelandic feather-collecting method, and Labrador ducks are described when he describes the Labrador feather voyages that were undertaken in North America. By suggesting that the eider duck could have met with the same fate as the Labrador duck did, the author highlights how the eider duck was not driven to extinction due to the feather-collecting method used. By comparing the type of ducks mentioned as part of each method's description, the author revisits the comparison that forms such a major part of the passage.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Adapted from “The Fog” by Carl Sandberg in Modern American Poetry (1919; ed. Untermeyer)
The fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking
over harbor and city
on silent haunches
and then moves on.
Adapted from “The Eagle” by Alfred Lord Tennyson (1851)
He crasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ringed with the azure world, he stands.
The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.
Which of the following describes a major difference between how these two short descriptive poems each distinguish their two stanzas?
To compare these two poems' stanzas accurately, let's consider what's going on in each of them. In the first stanza of "The Fog," the poet writes, "The fog comes / on little cat feet." What kind of language is this? it's not a simile because no word like "like" or "as" is used, so saying that the fog has "little cat feet" is a metaphor. This is the core of the poem, which its second stanza develops, continuing the metaphor by using description like "sits looking" "on silent haunches." This makes the fog sound like some sort of animal—specifically, a little cat. "The Eagle" is quite different. In its first stanza, the poem doesn't use a simile or metaphor for the eagle, but describes the bird directly. It uses a simile in the last line of its second stanza, "And like a thunderbolt he falls."
We can answer this question correctly based on these observations. We can't say that "The Fog" uses personification in its first stanza or that "The Eagle" uses personification in its second, so that answer choice is incorrect. "The Fog" discusses fog, a type of weather, in both of its stanzas; it doesn't discuss an animal in either of its stanza, though it can be easy to get confused about the metaphor the poet is using. So, the answer choices that claim that "The Fog" discusses an animal are incorrect as well. "The Fog" uses a metaphor, not a simile, in its first stanza, and "The Eagle" uses a simile, not a metaphor, in its second stanza, so that answer isn't correct either.
The correct answer is "The first stanza of “The Fog” establishes a metaphor crucial to the poem, and the second stanza elaborates on it. “The Eagle” uses a simile in its second stanza that is not as crucial to the poem." These statements accurately reflect the literary devices used in each of the poems and their relative importance to each poem as a whole.
Compare your answer with the correct one above