Reading to Analyze Elements of a Text
Help Questions
MAP 8th Grade Reading › Reading to Analyze Elements of a Text
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?
Fortunato desires to prove himself more knowledgeable than Luchresi.
Fortunato wants to make sure Luchresi doesn't know that the narrator purchased the amontillado.
Fortunato wants to make Luchresi look foolish by drawing attention to a mistake Luchesi made.
Fortunato wants to meet Luchresi and learn from him.
Fortunato wants to make sure that Luchresi does not get to enjoy the carnival.
Explanation
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."
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?
To emphasize the contrast between the action and the term “pen pal”
To claim that pen pals aren’t really typing
To show the importance of the word compared to the rest of the words in the passage
To express to readers that the word typing is a dated term with no use in current technology
To define the term later in the sentence
Explanation
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.
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 __________.
Howell acted purposely while Trouvelot introduced the moths by accident
Howell sought to capture insects while Trouvelot sought to release them
Howell worked for a park while Trouvelot was a scientist
Howell could be punished by law, while Trouvelot could not
Howell acted alone while Trouvelot worked with a group
Explanation
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.”
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"?
Master Antonio was called "Master Cherry" because his nose was always red.
Master Antonio was called "Master Cherry" because his cheeks were always red.
Master Antonio was called "Master Cherry" because he liked ripe cherries.
Master Antonio was called "Master Cherry" because his favorite color was red.
Explanation
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."
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:
suggest that factors other than public awareness are worthy of consideration when choosing a flagship species
provide an example of a species with a high level of public awareness
question the decision of environmentalists to include the pangolin as a flagship species
provide an example of a species with a keystone designation
familiarize readers with the term “flagship”
Explanation
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.
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?
To appeal to readers interested in math
To show that math is not a useful topic to learn in school
To give an example of a concept in schooling that, according to the author, is not commonly used by most adults
To give a reason why students should emphasize creative outlets such as visual arts
To argue that STEM is an important set of skills for upcoming generations of adults
Explanation
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.
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 panda is given as an example of a species with high charisma, while the pangolin is referenced as an animal with a high level of public awareness.
The pangolin and panda are each references as examples of keystone species.
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.
The otter is given as an example of a species with high public awareness, while the pangolin is referenced as an example of a keystone species.
The panda and the otter are each referenced as species with high public awareness.
Explanation
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:
- The panda is mentioned in the second paragraph, which is all about public awareness.
- The pangolin is mentioned right after the panda...and after the word “however” which signals that the author is changing directions. In that particular sentence, the author is making the point that the pangolin - which isn’t particularly well known - is also a flagship species, so public awareness cannot be the only factor that is considered when selecting flagship species.
- The otter is mentioned in the paragraph that discusses keystone species. Its sentence leads with “the otter, for example” meaning that it’s an example of the item discussed in the previous sentence, which is “Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems.” Therefore, the author means for the otter to be an example of a keystone species.
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?
Dial
Pen pal
Filming
Operators
DJ
Explanation
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.”
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.”
To show how inconvenient original models of the telephone were
To prove why it is important to update the names we give to actions when we update technology
To provide the historical context behind the phrase “hang up,” a term used today to mean “end the call.”
To help readers understand why phone calls were more complicated and less frequently used in the past
To encourage readers to be patient with older relatives who may not be “with the times” as technology advances
Explanation
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.
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
is the main subject of the passage
requires additional emphasis
is a title
needed to be clarified from other works entitled “The Odyssey”
is the most important example used in the passage
Explanation
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!