SAT Mock Test - 1 - SAT MCQ

Question based on the following passage:
This passage is adapted from Jane Austen, Emma, originally published in 1815.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich,
with a comfortable home and happy disposition,
seemed to unite some of the best blessings of
existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in
(5) the world with very little to distress or vex her.
She was the youngest of the two daughters of a
most affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in
consequence of her sister’s marriage, been mistress of
his house from a very early period. Her mother had
(10) died too long ago for her to have more than an
indistinct remembrance of her caresses, and her
place had been supplied by an excellent woman as
governess, who had fallen little short of a mother in affection.
(15) Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in
Mr. Woodhouse’s family, less as a governess than a
friend, very fond of both daughters, but particularly
of Emma. Between them it was more the intimacy
of sisters. Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold
(20) the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her
temper had hardly allowed her to impose any
restraint; and the shadow of authority being now
long passed away, they had been living together as friend and
friend very mutually attached, and Emma
(25) doing just what she liked; highly esteeming
Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by
her own.
The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the
power of having rather too much her own way, and a
(30) disposition to think a little too well of herself; these
were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her
many enjoyments. The danger, however, was at
present so unperceived, that they did not by any
means rank as misfortunes with her.
(35) Sorrow came—a gentle sorrow—but not at
all in the shape of any disagreeable
consciousness.—Miss Taylor married. It was
Miss Taylor’s loss which first brought grief. It was on
the wedding-day of this beloved friend that Emma
(40) first sat in mournful thought of any continuance.
The wedding over and the bride-people gone, her
father and herself were left to dine together, with no
prospect of a third to cheer a long evening. Her
father composed himself to sleep after dinner, as
(45) usual, and she had then only to sit and think of what
she had lost.
The event had every promise of happiness for her
friend. Mr. Weston was a man of unexceptionable
character, easy fortune, suitable age and pleasant
(50) manners; and there was some satisfaction in
considering with what self-denying, generous
friendship she had always wished and promoted the
match; but it was a black morning’s work for her.
The want of Miss Taylor would be felt every hour of
(55) every day. She recalled her past kindness—the
kindness, the affection of sixteen years—how she had
taught and how she had played with her from five
years old—how she had devoted all her powers to
attach and amuse her in health—and how nursed her
(60) through the various illnesses of childhood. A large
debt of gratitude was owing here; but the intercourse
of the last seven years, the equal footing and perfect
unreserve which had soon followed Isabella’s
marriage on their being left to each other, was yet a
(65) dearer, tenderer recollection. It had been a friend and
companion such as few possessed, intelligent,
well-informed, useful, gentle, knowing all the ways of
the family, interested in all its concerns, and
peculiarly interested in herself, in every pleasure,
(70) every scheme of her’s;—one to whom she could
speak every thought as it arose, and who had such an
affection for her as could never find fault.
How was she to bear the change?—It was true that
her friend was going only half a mile from them; but
(75) Emma was aware that great must be the difference
between a Mrs. Weston only half a mile from them,
and a Miss Taylor in the house; and with all her
advantages, natural and domestic, she was now in
great danger of suffering from intellectual solitude.
(80) She dearly loved her father, but he was no
companion for her. He could not meet her in
conversation, rational or playful.
The evil of the actual disparity in their ages (and
Mr. Woodhouse had not married early) was much
(85) increased by his constitution and habits; for having
been a valetudinarian* all his life, without activity of
mind or body, he was a much older man in ways
than in years; and though everywhere beloved for the
friendliness of his heart and his amiable temper, his
(90) talents could not have recommended him at
any time.
* a person in weak health who is overly concerned with his or her ailments

Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question based on the following passage:
This passage is adapted from Jane Austen, Emma, originally published in 1815.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich,
with a comfortable home and happy disposition,
seemed to unite some of the best blessings of
existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in
(5) the world with very little to distress or vex her.
She was the youngest of the two daughters of a
most affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in
consequence of her sister’s marriage, been mistress of
his house from a very early period. Her mother had
(10) died too long ago for her to have more than an
indistinct remembrance of her caresses, and her
place had been supplied by an excellent woman as
governess, who had fallen little short of a mother in affection.
(15) Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in
Mr. Woodhouse’s family, less as a governess than a
friend, very fond of both daughters, but particularly
of Emma. Between them it was more the intimacy
of sisters. Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold
(20) the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her
temper had hardly allowed her to impose any
restraint; and the shadow of authority being now
long passed away, they had been living together as friend and
friend very mutually attached, and Emma
(25) doing just what she liked; highly esteeming
Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by
her own.
The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the
power of having rather too much her own way, and a
(30) disposition to think a little too well of herself; these
were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her
many enjoyments. The danger, however, was at
present so unperceived, that they did not by any
means rank as misfortunes with her.
(35) Sorrow came—a gentle sorrow—but not at
all in the shape of any disagreeable
consciousness.—Miss Taylor married. It was
Miss Taylor’s loss which first brought grief. It was on
the wedding-day of this beloved friend that Emma
(40) first sat in mournful thought of any continuance.
The wedding over and the bride-people gone, her
father and herself were left to dine together, with no
prospect of a third to cheer a long evening. Her
father composed himself to sleep after dinner, as
(45) usual, and she had then only to sit and think of what
she had lost.
The event had every promise of happiness for her
friend. Mr. Weston was a man of unexceptionable
character, easy fortune, suitable age and pleasant
(50) manners; and there was some satisfaction in
considering with what self-denying, generous
friendship she had always wished and promoted the
match; but it was a black morning’s work for her.
The want of Miss Taylor would be felt every hour of
(55) every day. She recalled her past kindness—the
kindness, the affection of sixteen years—how she had
taught and how she had played with her from five
years old—how she had devoted all her powers to
attach and amuse her in health—and how nursed her
(60) through the various illnesses of childhood. A large
debt of gratitude was owing here; but the intercourse
of the last seven years, the equal footing and perfect
unreserve which had soon followed Isabella’s
marriage on their being left to each other, was yet a
(65) dearer, tenderer recollection. It had been a friend and
companion such as few possessed, intelligent,
well-informed, useful, gentle, knowing all the ways of
the family, interested in all its concerns, and
peculiarly interested in herself, in every pleasure,
(70) every scheme of her’s;—one to whom she could
speak every thought as it arose, and who had such an
affection for her as could never find fault.
How was she to bear the change?—It was true that
her friend was going only half a mile from them; but
(75) Emma was aware that great must be the difference
between a Mrs. Weston only half a mile from them,
and a Miss Taylor in the house; and with all her
advantages, natural and domestic, she was now in
great danger of suffering from intellectual solitude.
(80) She dearly loved her father, but he was no
companion for her. He could not meet her in
conversation, rational or playful.
The evil of the actual disparity in their ages (and
Mr. Woodhouse had not married early) was much
(85) increased by his constitution and habits; for having
been a valetudinarian* all his life, without activity of
mind or body, he was a much older man in ways
than in years; and though everywhere beloved for the
friendliness of his heart and his amiable temper, his
(90) talents could not have recommended him at
any time.
* a person in weak health who is overly concerned with his or her ailments

Q. As used in line 26, “directed” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage:
This passage is adapted from Jane Austen, Emma, originally published in 1815.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich,
with a comfortable home and happy disposition,
seemed to unite some of the best blessings of
existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in
(5) the world with very little to distress or vex her.
She was the youngest of the two daughters of a
most affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in
consequence of her sister’s marriage, been mistress of
his house from a very early period. Her mother had
(10) died too long ago for her to have more than an
indistinct remembrance of her caresses, and her
place had been supplied by an excellent woman as
governess, who had fallen little short of a mother in affection.
(15) Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in
Mr. Woodhouse’s family, less as a governess than a
friend, very fond of both daughters, but particularly
of Emma. Between them it was more the intimacy
of sisters. Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold
(20) the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her
temper had hardly allowed her to impose any
restraint; and the shadow of authority being now
long passed away, they had been living together as friend and
friend very mutually attached, and Emma
(25) doing just what she liked; highly esteeming
Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by
her own.
The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the
power of having rather too much her own way, and a
(30) disposition to think a little too well of herself; these
were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her
many enjoyments. The danger, however, was at
present so unperceived, that they did not by any
means rank as misfortunes with her.
(35) Sorrow came—a gentle sorrow—but not at
all in the shape of any disagreeable
consciousness.—Miss Taylor married. It was
Miss Taylor’s loss which first brought grief. It was on
the wedding-day of this beloved friend that Emma
(40) first sat in mournful thought of any continuance.
The wedding over and the bride-people gone, her
father and herself were left to dine together, with no
prospect of a third to cheer a long evening. Her
father composed himself to sleep after dinner, as
(45) usual, and she had then only to sit and think of what
she had lost.
The event had every promise of happiness for her
friend. Mr. Weston was a man of unexceptionable
character, easy fortune, suitable age and pleasant
(50) manners; and there was some satisfaction in
considering with what self-denying, generous
friendship she had always wished and promoted the
match; but it was a black morning’s work for her.
The want of Miss Taylor would be felt every hour of
(55) every day. She recalled her past kindness—the
kindness, the affection of sixteen years—how she had
taught and how she had played with her from five
years old—how she had devoted all her powers to
attach and amuse her in health—and how nursed her
(60) through the various illnesses of childhood. A large
debt of gratitude was owing here; but the intercourse
of the last seven years, the equal footing and perfect
unreserve which had soon followed Isabella’s
marriage on their being left to each other, was yet a
(65) dearer, tenderer recollection. It had been a friend and
companion such as few possessed, intelligent,
well-informed, useful, gentle, knowing all the ways of
the family, interested in all its concerns, and
peculiarly interested in herself, in every pleasure,
(70) every scheme of her’s;—one to whom she could
speak every thought as it arose, and who had such an
affection for her as could never find fault.
How was she to bear the change?—It was true that
her friend was going only half a mile from them; but
(75) Emma was aware that great must be the difference
between a Mrs. Weston only half a mile from them,
and a Miss Taylor in the house; and with all her
advantages, natural and domestic, she was now in
great danger of suffering from intellectual solitude.
(80) She dearly loved her father, but he was no
companion for her. He could not meet her in
conversation, rational or playful.
The evil of the actual disparity in their ages (and
Mr. Woodhouse had not married early) was much
(85) increased by his constitution and habits; for having
been a valetudinarian* all his life, without activity of
mind or body, he was a much older man in ways
than in years; and though everywhere beloved for the
friendliness of his heart and his amiable temper, his
(90) talents could not have recommended him at
any time.
* a person in weak health who is overly concerned with his or her ailments

Q. As used in line 54, “want” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage:
This passage is adapted from Jane Austen, Emma, originally published in 1815.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich,
with a comfortable home and happy disposition,
seemed to unite some of the best blessings of
existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in
(5) the world with very little to distress or vex her.
She was the youngest of the two daughters of a
most affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in
consequence of her sister’s marriage, been mistress of
his house from a very early period. Her mother had
(10) died too long ago for her to have more than an
indistinct remembrance of her caresses, and her
place had been supplied by an excellent woman as
governess, who had fallen little short of a mother in affection.
(15) Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in
Mr. Woodhouse’s family, less as a governess than a
friend, very fond of both daughters, but particularly
of Emma. Between them it was more the intimacy
of sisters. Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold
(20) the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her
temper had hardly allowed her to impose any
restraint; and the shadow of authority being now
long passed away, they had been living together as friend and
friend very mutually attached, and Emma
(25) doing just what she liked; highly esteeming
Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by
her own.
The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the
power of having rather too much her own way, and a
(30) disposition to think a little too well of herself; these
were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her
many enjoyments. The danger, however, was at
present so unperceived, that they did not by any
means rank as misfortunes with her.
(35) Sorrow came—a gentle sorrow—but not at
all in the shape of any disagreeable
consciousness.—Miss Taylor married. It was
Miss Taylor’s loss which first brought grief. It was on
the wedding-day of this beloved friend that Emma
(40) first sat in mournful thought of any continuance.
The wedding over and the bride-people gone, her
father and herself were left to dine together, with no
prospect of a third to cheer a long evening. Her
father composed himself to sleep after dinner, as
(45) usual, and she had then only to sit and think of what
she had lost.
The event had every promise of happiness for her
friend. Mr. Weston was a man of unexceptionable
character, easy fortune, suitable age and pleasant
(50) manners; and there was some satisfaction in
considering with what self-denying, generous
friendship she had always wished and promoted the
match; but it was a black morning’s work for her.
The want of Miss Taylor would be felt every hour of
(55) every day. She recalled her past kindness—the
kindness, the affection of sixteen years—how she had
taught and how she had played with her from five
years old—how she had devoted all her powers to
attach and amuse her in health—and how nursed her
(60) through the various illnesses of childhood. A large
debt of gratitude was owing here; but the intercourse
of the last seven years, the equal footing and perfect
unreserve which had soon followed Isabella’s
marriage on their being left to each other, was yet a
(65) dearer, tenderer recollection. It had been a friend and
companion such as few possessed, intelligent,
well-informed, useful, gentle, knowing all the ways of
the family, interested in all its concerns, and
peculiarly interested in herself, in every pleasure,
(70) every scheme of her’s;—one to whom she could
speak every thought as it arose, and who had such an
affection for her as could never find fault.
How was she to bear the change?—It was true that
her friend was going only half a mile from them; but
(75) Emma was aware that great must be the difference
between a Mrs. Weston only half a mile from them,
and a Miss Taylor in the house; and with all her
advantages, natural and domestic, she was now in
great danger of suffering from intellectual solitude.
(80) She dearly loved her father, but he was no
companion for her. He could not meet her in
conversation, rational or playful.
The evil of the actual disparity in their ages (and
Mr. Woodhouse had not married early) was much
(85) increased by his constitution and habits; for having
been a valetudinarian* all his life, without activity of
mind or body, he was a much older man in ways
than in years; and though everywhere beloved for the
friendliness of his heart and his amiable temper, his
(90) talents could not have recommended him at
any time.
* a person in weak health who is overly concerned with his or her ailments

Q. It can most reasonably be inferred that after Miss Taylor married, she had

Question based on the following passage:
This passage is adapted from Jane Austen, Emma, originally published in 1815.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich,
with a comfortable home and happy disposition,
seemed to unite some of the best blessings of
existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in
(5) the world with very little to distress or vex her.
She was the youngest of the two daughters of a
most affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in
consequence of her sister’s marriage, been mistress of
his house from a very early period. Her mother had
(10) died too long ago for her to have more than an
indistinct remembrance of her caresses, and her
place had been supplied by an excellent woman as
governess, who had fallen little short of a mother in affection.
(15) Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in
Mr. Woodhouse’s family, less as a governess than a
friend, very fond of both daughters, but particularly
of Emma. Between them it was more the intimacy
of sisters. Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold
(20) the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her
temper had hardly allowed her to impose any
restraint; and the shadow of authority being now
long passed away, they had been living together as friend and
friend very mutually attached, and Emma
(25) doing just what she liked; highly esteeming
Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by
her own.
The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the
power of having rather too much her own way, and a
(30) disposition to think a little too well of herself; these
were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her
many enjoyments. The danger, however, was at
present so unperceived, that they did not by any
means rank as misfortunes with her.
(35) Sorrow came—a gentle sorrow—but not at
all in the shape of any disagreeable
consciousness.—Miss Taylor married. It was
Miss Taylor’s loss which first brought grief. It was on
the wedding-day of this beloved friend that Emma
(40) first sat in mournful thought of any continuance.
The wedding over and the bride-people gone, her
father and herself were left to dine together, with no
prospect of a third to cheer a long evening. Her
father composed himself to sleep after dinner, as
(45) usual, and she had then only to sit and think of what
she had lost.
The event had every promise of happiness for her
friend. Mr. Weston was a man of unexceptionable
character, easy fortune, suitable age and pleasant
(50) manners; and there was some satisfaction in
considering with what self-denying, generous
friendship she had always wished and promoted the
match; but it was a black morning’s work for her.
The want of Miss Taylor would be felt every hour of
(55) every day. She recalled her past kindness—the
kindness, the affection of sixteen years—how she had
taught and how she had played with her from five
years old—how she had devoted all her powers to
attach and amuse her in health—and how nursed her
(60) through the various illnesses of childhood. A large
debt of gratitude was owing here; but the intercourse
of the last seven years, the equal footing and perfect
unreserve which had soon followed Isabella’s
marriage on their being left to each other, was yet a
(65) dearer, tenderer recollection. It had been a friend and
companion such as few possessed, intelligent,
well-informed, useful, gentle, knowing all the ways of
the family, interested in all its concerns, and
peculiarly interested in herself, in every pleasure,
(70) every scheme of her’s;—one to whom she could
speak every thought as it arose, and who had such an
affection for her as could never find fault.
How was she to bear the change?—It was true that
her friend was going only half a mile from them; but
(75) Emma was aware that great must be the difference
between a Mrs. Weston only half a mile from them,
and a Miss Taylor in the house; and with all her
advantages, natural and domestic, she was now in
great danger of suffering from intellectual solitude.
(80) She dearly loved her father, but he was no
companion for her. He could not meet her in
conversation, rational or playful.
The evil of the actual disparity in their ages (and
Mr. Woodhouse had not married early) was much
(85) increased by his constitution and habits; for having
been a valetudinarian* all his life, without activity of
mind or body, he was a much older man in ways
than in years; and though everywhere beloved for the
friendliness of his heart and his amiable temper, his
(90) talents could not have recommended him at
any time.
* a person in weak health who is overly concerned with his or her ailments

Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question based on the following passage:
This passage is adapted from Jane Austen, Emma, originally published in 1815.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich,
with a comfortable home and happy disposition,
seemed to unite some of the best blessings of
existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in
(5) the world with very little to distress or vex her.
She was the youngest of the two daughters of a
most affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in
consequence of her sister’s marriage, been mistress of
his house from a very early period. Her mother had
(10) died too long ago for her to have more than an
indistinct remembrance of her caresses, and her
place had been supplied by an excellent woman as
governess, who had fallen little short of a mother in affection.
(15) Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in
Mr. Woodhouse’s family, less as a governess than a
friend, very fond of both daughters, but particularly
of Emma. Between them it was more the intimacy
of sisters. Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold
(20) the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her
temper had hardly allowed her to impose any
restraint; and the shadow of authority being now
long passed away, they had been living together as friend and
friend very mutually attached, and Emma
(25) doing just what she liked; highly esteeming
Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by
her own.
The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the
power of having rather too much her own way, and a
(30) disposition to think a little too well of herself; these
were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her
many enjoyments. The danger, however, was at
present so unperceived, that they did not by any
means rank as misfortunes with her.
(35) Sorrow came—a gentle sorrow—but not at
all in the shape of any disagreeable
consciousness.—Miss Taylor married. It was
Miss Taylor’s loss which first brought grief. It was on
the wedding-day of this beloved friend that Emma
(40) first sat in mournful thought of any continuance.
The wedding over and the bride-people gone, her
father and herself were left to dine together, with no
prospect of a third to cheer a long evening. Her
father composed himself to sleep after dinner, as
(45) usual, and she had then only to sit and think of what
she had lost.
The event had every promise of happiness for her
friend. Mr. Weston was a man of unexceptionable
character, easy fortune, suitable age and pleasant
(50) manners; and there was some satisfaction in
considering with what self-denying, generous
friendship she had always wished and promoted the
match; but it was a black morning’s work for her.
The want of Miss Taylor would be felt every hour of
(55) every day. She recalled her past kindness—the
kindness, the affection of sixteen years—how she had
taught and how she had played with her from five
years old—how she had devoted all her powers to
attach and amuse her in health—and how nursed her
(60) through the various illnesses of childhood. A large
debt of gratitude was owing here; but the intercourse
of the last seven years, the equal footing and perfect
unreserve which had soon followed Isabella’s
marriage on their being left to each other, was yet a
(65) dearer, tenderer recollection. It had been a friend and
companion such as few possessed, intelligent,
well-informed, useful, gentle, knowing all the ways of
the family, interested in all its concerns, and
peculiarly interested in herself, in every pleasure,
(70) every scheme of her’s;—one to whom she could
speak every thought as it arose, and who had such an
affection for her as could never find fault.
How was she to bear the change?—It was true that
her friend was going only half a mile from them; but
(75) Emma was aware that great must be the difference
between a Mrs. Weston only half a mile from them,
and a Miss Taylor in the house; and with all her
advantages, natural and domestic, she was now in
great danger of suffering from intellectual solitude.
(80) She dearly loved her father, but he was no
companion for her. He could not meet her in
conversation, rational or playful.
The evil of the actual disparity in their ages (and
Mr. Woodhouse had not married early) was much
(85) increased by his constitution and habits; for having
been a valetudinarian* all his life, without activity of
mind or body, he was a much older man in ways
than in years; and though everywhere beloved for the
friendliness of his heart and his amiable temper, his
(90) talents could not have recommended him at
any time.
* a person in weak health who is overly concerned with his or her ailments

Q. Which situation is most similar to the one described in lines 84-92 (“The evil . . . time”)?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. As used in line 10, “plot” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. The references to the shoemaker, the programmer, and the apple farmer in lines 37-40 (“We can easily . . . community”) primarily serve to

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. The passage’s discussion of life in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s primarily serves to

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. The passage’s discussion of life in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s primarily serves to

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. The author indicates that, in comparison to individuals, traditional organizations have tended to be

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. The author recognizes counterarguments to the position she takes in the passage by

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. Which statement best summarizes the information presented in the graph?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material:
This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.
Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and
1970s always marveled at the gap between what they
saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with
things no one wanted—and what they saw in
(5) people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal
economy driven by human relationships, dense
networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people
(10) didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No
one was teaching them how to maximize their
connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their
networks evolved naturally, out of
necessity; that was the only way to survive.
(15) Today, all around the world, we are seeing
a new kind of network of relationship-driven
economics emerging, with individuals joining forces
sometimes to fill the gaps left by existing
institutions—corporations, governments,
(20) educational establishments—and sometimes creating
new products, services, and knowledge that no
institution is able to provide. Empowered by
computing and communication technologies that
have been steadily building village-like networks on a
(25) global scale, we are infusing more and more of our
economic transactions with social connectedness.
The new technologies are inherently social and
personal. They help us create communities around
interests, identities, and common personal
(30) challenges. They allow us to gain direct access to a
worldwide community of others. And they take
anonymity out of our economic transactions. We can
assess those we don’t know by checking their
reputations as buyers and sellers on eBay or by
(35) following their Twitter streams. We can look up their
friends on Facebook and watch their YouTube
videos. We can easily get people’s advice on where to
find the best shoemaker in Brazil, the best 
programmer in India, and the best apple farmer in
(40) our local community. We no longer have to rely on
bankers or venture capitalists as the only sources of
funding for our ideas. We can raise funds directly
from individuals, most of whom we don’t even know,
through websites that allow people to
(45) post descriptions of their projects and generate
donations, investments, or loans.
We are moving away from the dominance of the
depersonalized world of institutional production and
creating a new economy around social connections
(50) and social rewards—a process I call socialstructing.
Others have referred to this model of production as
social, commons-based, or peer-to-peer. Not only is
this new social economy bringing with it an
unprecedented level of familiarity and connectedness
(55) to both our global and our local economic exchanges,
but it is also changing every domain of our lives,
from finance to education and health. It is rapidly
ushering in a vast array of new opportunities for us
to pursue our passions, create new types of
(60) businesses and charitable organizations, redefine the
nature of work, and address a wide range of
problems that the prevailing formal economy has
neglected, if not caused.
Socialstructing is in fact enabling not only a new
(65) kind of global economy but a new kind of society, in
which amplified individuals—individuals 
empowered with technologies and the collective
intelligence of others in their social network—can
take on many functions that previously only large
(70) organizations could perform, often more efficiently,
at lower cost or no cost at all, and with much greater
ease. Socialstructing is opening up a world of what
my colleagues Jacques Vallée and Bob Johansen
describe as the world of impossible futures, a world
(75) in which a large software firm can be displaced by
weekend software hackers, and rapidly orchestrated
social movements can bring down governments in a
matter of weeks. The changes are exciting and
unpredictable. They threaten many established
(80) institutions and offer a wealth of opportunities for
individuals to empower themselves, find rich new
connections, and tap into a fast-evolving set of new
resources in everything from health care to education
and science.
(85) Much has been written about how technology
distances us from the benefits of face-to-face
communication and quality social time. I think those
are important concerns. But while the quality of our
face-to-face interactions is changing, the
(90) countervailing force of socialstructing is connecting
us at levels never seen before, opening up new
opportunities to create, learn, and share.
The following graph, from a 2011 report from the International Data Corporation, projects trends in digital information use to 2015 (E = Estimated).

Q. According to the graph, which statement is true about the amount of digital information projected to be created and shared globally in 2012?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.

Q. The passage is written from the perspective of someone who is

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.​​​​​​​

Q. It is reasonable to conclude that the main goal of the scientists conducting the research described in the passage is to

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.​​​​​​​

Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.​​​​​​​

Q. What main effect do the quotations by Andrews in lines 10-18 have on the tone of the passage?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.
​​​​​​​

Q. As used in line 19, “stores” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.​​​​​​​

Q. Based on the passage, what is Fröbert’s hypothesis regarding why bears’ arteries do not harden during hibernation?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.​​​​​​​

Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.​​​​​​​

Q. What information discussed in paragraph 10 (lines 58-68) is represented by the graph?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.
Understanding how hibernators, including
ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their
long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for
problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and
(5) muscular dystrophy.
Nearly everything about the way an animal’s body
works changes when it hibernates, and preparations
start weeks or months in advance. The first order of
business is to fatten up.
(10) “Fat is where it’s at for a hibernator,” says
Matthew Andrews, a molecular biologist at the
University of Minnesota Duluth who studies 13-lined
ground squirrels. “You bring your own lunch with
you.” Packing lunch is necessary because the animals
(15) go on the world’s strictest diet during the winter,
surviving entirely off their white fat. “They have their
last supper in October; they don’t eat again until
March,” Andrews says.
Bigger fat stores mean a greater chance of
(20) surviving until spring. “If they go in really chunky,
nice and roly-poly, that’s going to be a good
hibernator,” he says.
Bears also watch their waistlines expand in the
months before settling in for the season. The brown
(25) bears cardiologist Ole Fröbert studies pack on the
pounds by chowing down on up to 40 kilograms of
blueberries a day. Such gluttony among humans
could have severe consequences: Obesity is
associated with a greater risk of heart attack and
(30) diabetes, among other ailments.
To see how fattening up affects Scandinavian
brown bears, Fröbert and his colleagues
ventured into the wilds of Sweden following signals
given off by radio transmitters or GPS devices on
(35) tagged bears.
Bears can be dangerous close-up. Even
hibernating bears can rouse to action quickly, so
scientists tracking down bears in the winter use darts
to tranquilize the animals from a distance. Scientists
(40) studying the bears in the summer tranquilize them
from a helicopter.
Once a bear is under the tranquilizer’s influence
(which takes about five minutes), the scientists have
60 minutes max to get the animal from its den, weigh
(45) and measure it, draw blood samples and do minor
surgeries to collect fat and other tissues. The bear is
returned to its den by minute 61.
Precious materials collected during this
high-pressure encounter need to be analyzed within
(50) 24 hours, so the researchers often test for levels of
cholesterol or certain proteins in the blood while
working in the snow or at a nearby research station.
A pilot sometimes flies samples from field sites to a
lab in Denmark in order to meet the deadline,
(55) Fröbert says. Samples such as bones and arteries that
can’t be collected from live bears come from bears
killed by hunters during the legal hunting season.
Recent analyses revealed that Scandinavian brown
bears spend the summer with plasma cholesterol
(60) levels considered high for humans; those values then
increase substantially for hibernation, Fröbert and
his colleagues reported. These “very, very fat” bears
with high cholesterol also get zero exercise during
hibernation. Lolling about in the den pinches off
(65) blood vessels, contributing to sluggish circulation.
“That cocktail would not be advisable in humans,”
Fröbert says. It’s a recipe for hardened arteries,
putting people at risk for heart attacks and strokes.
Even healthy young adult humans can develop
(70) fatty streaks in their arteries that make the blood
vessels less flexible, but the bears don’t build up such
artery-hardening streaks. “Our bears, they had
nothing,” Fröbert says. It’s not yet clear how the
bears keep their arteries flexible, but Fröbert hopes to
(75) find some protective molecule that could stave off
hardened arteries in humans as well.​​​​​​​

Q. Which statement about the effect of hibernation on the seven bears is best supported by the graph?

Questions based on the following passage:
This passage is from Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth," originally published in 1889. Arriving penniless in Pennsylvania from Scotland in 1848, Carnegie became one of the richest people in the United States through the manufacture of steel.
The problem of our age is the proper
administration of wealth, that the ties of brotherhood
may still bind together the rich and poor in
harmonious relationship. The conditions of human
(5) life have not only been changed, but revolutionized,
within the past few hundred years. In former days
there was little difference between the dwelling,
dress, food, and environment of the chief and those
of his retainers....The contrast between the palace
(10) of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with
us to-day measures the change which has come with
civilization. This change, however, is not to be
deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is
well, nay, essential, for the progress of the race that
(15) the houses of some should be homes for all that is
highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all
the refinements of civilization, rather than that none
should be so. Much better this great irregularity than
universal squalor. Without wealth there can be no
(20) Maecenas.* The “good old times” were not good old
times. Neither master nor servant was as well
situated then as to-day. A relapse to old conditions
would be disastrous to both—not the least so to him
who serves—and would sweep away civilization with
(25) it. But whether the change be for good or ill, it is
upon us, beyond our power to alter, and, therefore,
to be accepted and made the best of. It is a waste of
time to criticize the inevitable.
It is easy to see how the change has come.
(30) One illustration will serve for almost every phase of
the cause. In the manufacture of products we have
the whole story. It applies to all combinations of
human industry, as stimulated and enlarged by the
inventions of this scientific age. Formerly, articles
(35) were manufactured at the domestic hearth, or in
small shops which formed part of the household.
The master and his apprentices worked side by side, 
the latter living with the master, and therefore
subject to the same conditions. When these
(40) apprentices rose to be masters, there was little or no
change in their mode of life, and they, in turn,
educated succeeding apprentices in the same routine.
There was, substantially, social equality, and even
political equality, for those engaged in industrial
(45) pursuits had then little or no voice in the State.
The inevitable result of such a mode of
manufacture was crude articles at high prices. To-day
the world obtains commodities of excellent quality at
prices which even the preceding generation would
(50) have deemed incredible. In the commercial world
similar causes have produced similar results, and the
race is benefited thereby. The poor enjoy what the
rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries
have become the necessaries of life. The laborer has
(55) now more comforts than the farmer had a few
generations ago. The farmer has more luxuries than
the landlord had, and is more richly clad and better
housed. The landlord has books and pictures rarer
and appointments more artistic than the king could
(60) then obtain.
The price we pay for this salutary change is, no
doubt, great. We assemble thousands of operatives in
the factory, and in the mine, of whom the employer
can know little or nothing, and to whom he is little
(65) better than a myth. All intercourse between them is
at an end. Rigid castes are formed, and, as usual,
mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust. Each caste
is without sympathy for the other, and ready to credit
anything disparaging in regard to it. Under the law of
(70) competition, the employer of thousands is forced
into the strictest economies, among which the rates
paid to labor figure prominently, and often there is
friction between the employer and the employed,
between capital and labor, between rich and poor.
(75) Human society loses homogeneity.
The price which society pays for the law of
competition, like the price it pays for cheap comforts and
luxuries, is also great; but the advantages of this
law are also greater still than its cost—for it is to this
(80) law that we owe our wonderful material
development, which brings improved conditions
in its train.
* Gaius Maecenas (70–8 B.C.E.) was a great patron of the arts.

Q. Which choice best describes the structure of the first paragraph?

Questions based on the following passage:
This passage is from Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth," originally published in 1889. Arriving penniless in Pennsylvania from Scotland in 1848, Carnegie became one of the richest people in the United States through the manufacture of steel.
The problem of our age is the proper
administration of wealth, that the ties of brotherhood
may still bind together the rich and poor in
harmonious relationship. The conditions of human
(5) life have not only been changed, but revolutionized,
within the past few hundred years. In former days
there was little difference between the dwelling,
dress, food, and environment of the chief and those
of his retainers....The contrast between the palace
(10) of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with
us to-day measures the change which has come with
civilization. This change, however, is not to be
deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is
well, nay, essential, for the progress of the race that
(15) the houses of some should be homes for all that is
highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all
the refinements of civilization, rather than that none
should be so. Much better this great irregularity than
universal squalor. Without wealth there can be no
(20) Maecenas.* The “good old times” were not good old
times. Neither master nor servant was as well
situated then as to-day. A relapse to old conditions
would be disastrous to both—not the least so to him
who serves—and would sweep away civilization with
(25) it. But whether the change be for good or ill, it is
upon us, beyond our power to alter, and, therefore,
to be accepted and made the best of. It is a waste of
time to criticize the inevitable.
It is easy to see how the change has come.
(30) One illustration will serve for almost every phase of
the cause. In the manufacture of products we have
the whole story. It applies to all combinations of
human industry, as stimulated and enlarged by the
inventions of this scientific age. Formerly, articles
(35) were manufactured at the domestic hearth, or in
small shops which formed part of the household.
The master and his apprentices worked side by side, 
the latter living with the master, and therefore
subject to the same conditions. When these
(40) apprentices rose to be masters, there was little or no
change in their mode of life, and they, in turn,
educated succeeding apprentices in the same routine.
There was, substantially, social equality, and even
political equality, for those engaged in industrial
(45) pursuits had then little or no voice in the State.
The inevitable result of such a mode of
manufacture was crude articles at high prices. To-day
the world obtains commodities of excellent quality at
prices which even the preceding generation would
(50) have deemed incredible. In the commercial world
similar causes have produced similar results, and the
race is benefited thereby. The poor enjoy what the
rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries
have become the necessaries of life. The laborer has
(55) now more comforts than the farmer had a few
generations ago. The farmer has more luxuries than
the landlord had, and is more richly clad and better
housed. The landlord has books and pictures rarer
and appointments more artistic than the king could
(60) then obtain.
The price we pay for this salutary change is, no
doubt, great. We assemble thousands of operatives in
the factory, and in the mine, of whom the employer
can know little or nothing, and to whom he is little
(65) better than a myth. All intercourse between them is
at an end. Rigid castes are formed, and, as usual,
mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust. Each caste
is without sympathy for the other, and ready to credit
anything disparaging in regard to it. Under the law of
(70) competition, the employer of thousands is forced
into the strictest economies, among which the rates
paid to labor figure prominently, and often there is
friction between the employer and the employed,
between capital and labor, between rich and poor.
(75) Human society loses homogeneity.
The price which society pays for the law of
competition, like the price it pays for cheap comforts and
luxuries, is also great; but the advantages of this
law are also greater still than its cost—for it is to this
(80) law that we owe our wonderful material
development, which brings improved conditions
in its train.
* Gaius Maecenas (70–8 B.C.E.) was a great patron of the arts.

Q. The author most strongly implies which of the following about “the ties of brotherhood” (line 2)?