Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. Both passages acknowledge the effectiveness of U.S. farm subsidies in

increasing agricultural productivity.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. The first sentence of Passage 1 refers primarily to the author’s belief that

the American government is not doing enough to help small farmers.

some A merican farmers are v iolating the law.

a federal agricultural program is unfair and ineffective.

American farmers are struggling to compete in international markets.

Question are based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. The author of Passage 1 believes that the GAO report “probably won’t” (line 9) horrify lawmakers because

the report indicates that farm subsidies are not as harmful as many suggest.

most members of congress do not live in districts that receive farm subsidies.

the legislature is too divided along ideological party lines.

many members of congress receive benefits from pro-subsidy farm lobbies.

Question are based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. Which of the following provides the strongest evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 16–18 (“Because of . . . wheat prices”)

Lines 21–24 (“To prevent t his . . . prices again”)

Lines 42–45 (“Indeed . . . family farms”)

Lines 54–57 (“Agribusiness . . . sign of closing”)

Question are based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. Unlike Passage 1, Passage 2 emphasizes the danger of

sudden changes in commodity prices.

competition in international markets.

Question are based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. Passage 1 mentions the results of the 2009 poll (lines 42–45) primarily to

change t he focus of t he discussion.

Question are based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. If the author of Passage 1 were to use the data in the graph to support his main thesis, he would most likely mention

the general decline in total farm subsidies from 2005 to 2012.

the overall rate of change in commodity subsidies from 1998 to 2012.

the expansion of crop insurance subsidies from the late 1990s to the late 2000s.

the sudden spike in disaster subsidies from 2004 to 2005.

Question are based on the following passage and supplementary material. Passage 1 is adapted from Nicholas Heidorn, “The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies.” ©2004 The Independent Institute. Originally Published August 18, 2004 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Passage 2 is ©2015 by Mark Anestis. Since 1922, the U.S. government has subsidized the agricultural industry by supporting the price of crops (commodity subsidies), paying farmers let their fields go fallow (conservation subsidies), helping farmers purchase crop insurance (crop insurance subsidies), and compensating farmers for uninsured losses due to disasters (disaster subsidies). The following passages discuss these programs. Passage 1 Something is rotten down on the farm. A recent General Accounting Office study found that the U.S. farm subsidy program, a multibillion-dollar system of direct payments to American farmers, (5) uses administrators who are ill-trained and poorly monitored, and who give away millions of taxpayer dollars to farmers who are actually ineligible for the program. This report should horrify lawmakers, but it probably won’t. (10) From 1995 to 2002, the United States Congress doled out more than $114 billion to farmers. Why? One misconception is that subsidies are a boon to consumers because they lower food prices. This ignores the fact that consumers are (15) also paying for these subsidies through taxes. Because of inefficiencies in the program, we taxpayers will pay more in taxes than we will ever get back in lower corn or wheat prices. In fact, farm subsidies are not even intended (20) to reduce food prices significantly. When prices are too low, farmers lose money. To prevent this situation, Congress also pays farmers additional “conservation subsidies” to leave their land fallow, thereby lowering supply and boosting prices again. (25) We’re taxed to lower prices, and then taxed to raise them again. Another myth is that subsidies increase exports, and thereby benefit the American economy, by lowering the price of farm products (30) and so making them more attractive to foreign consumers. This ignores two realities. First, farm subsidies transfer wealth from taxpayers to foreign consumers just as efficiently as they transfer wealth to domestic consumers. (35) Second, farm subsidies are actually harming American exporters. In March 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled that American cotton subsidies violated global free-trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory (40) tariffs or penalties. The worst misconception is that we need these subsidies to save the small family farmer. Indeed, according to a 2009 poll, about 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family (45) farms. But according to the Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of beneficiaries, almost all of which are large corporate farms. By subsidizing these rich farmers, we actually make it much harder for the (50) small family farmers to compete, not to mention the millions of impoverished third world farmers who rely on farming for their livelihood. Rich corporate farmers are an enormously powerful lobby in American politics. Agribusines (55) and farm insurance lobbies pump nearly $100 million into political campaigns every year, and the floodgates show no sign of closing. So don’t be surprised if the GAO’s reports of mismanagement and waste go unheeded. Politicians like their (60) payouts almost as much as the big farmers and their insurance companies do. Passage 2 The critics of the U.S. farm subsidy program fail to recognize just how vital these subsidies really are. They are not as burdensome to American (65) taxpayers as the critics claim, and indeed provide important benefits. By protecting farmers from damaging fluctuations in commodity prices due to weather disasters or market disruptions, these subsidies help sustain a vital American industry. (70) At the same time, they protect consumers from price spikes that can accompany steep drops in crop inventories. Before price supports became common in the 20th century, crop failures devastated the lives of farmers and consumers with (75) horrifying frequency. Opponents say that subsidies distort the free market and create surpluses in supply. But halting subsidies would allow regular shortfalls, which are far more damaging. The year-to-year (80) carryover of these surpluses protects farmers from low prices and consumers from high prices. Another misconception is that subsidies only benefit the producers. In fact, they help many related industries as well, including food (85) processing, distribution, and marketing, chiefly by helping to lower the cost of production. And, of course, the consumers receive the benefit of lower prices. When assessing the costs and benefits of (90) farm payments, it is important to compare these subsidies to those of other industrialized nations. American farmers receive an average of just 20% of their incomes from subsidies, compared to 70% for farmers from some other countries. The European (95) Union spends about five times what the United States spends on farm subsidies, amounting to 45% of the EU budget, compared to less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. Although the U.S. farm subsidies programs are not perfect, they provide (100) enormous benefits not only to farms but also to associated industries employing millions of people and to nearly every American consumer. Q. If the author of Passage 2 were to use the data in the graph to support his main thesis, he would most likely mention

the general decline in total farm subsidies from 2005 to 2012.

the overall rate of change in commodity subsidies from 1998 to 2012.

the expansion of crop insurance subsidies from the late 1990s to the late 2000s.

the sudden spike in disaster subsidies from 2004 to 2005.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Marie Myung-Ok Lee, Somebody’s Daughter. ©2006 Beacon Press. The story is about a Korean-American girl adopted by an American family and raised in the Midwest. When I was eight, they told me that my mother’s death was preordained. She had been murdered. One Sunday after service, our minister, Reverend Jansen of the Lutheran Church of the (5) Good Shepherd, bent down in a cloud of Aqua Velva to explain. We had been learning in Sunday school about Heaven and Hell, and in the middle of class I had fallen into a panic, wondering how I would recognize my Korean mother when I saw (10) her in Heaven—or in Hell, if perhaps she and I both sinned too much. Not to worry, I was told. “God called your Korean parents home so that you could become the daughter of your (15) mother and father,” he said, his eyes sliding sidewise, for just a second. His breath smelled vaguely of toast. “It was all part of His plan—you see how much your mommy and daddy love you? When the time (20) comes, if you’re a very good girl, you, your mommy, daddy, and your sister, Amanda—the whole Thorson family—will be in heaven together, thanks to the Lord’s wonderful and mysterious ways.” “That’s why we named you Sarah,” Christine (25) and Ken added. “Because it means ‘God’s precious treasure.’” God kills, I thought then. The same God who brought us Christmas and the Easter Bunny—he murdered my mother. (30) Shortly after that Sunday, I brought up my Korean mother again, asking about the car accident, how it happened, exactly—was it like Phil Haag’s father, who fell asleep at the wheel? Or like our plumber’s teenage son who drove into a (35) semi head-on? “Sarah,” Christine said patiently, looking up from the chopping board, where she was slicing carrot discs for pot roast. “We really knew nothing about her. I’m your mommy. Let’s not (40) talk about this any more, it makes me sad.” She made little crying motions, pretending to wipe away tears, the same thing she did when I was bad, to show how I had disappointed her. I grew up in a house in which Korea had (45) always been the oddly charged word, never to be mentioned in connection to me, the same way we never said “Uncle Henry” and “alcoholic” in the same sentence. It was almost as if Ken and Christine thought I needed to be protected from (50) it, the way small children need to be protected from boors itching to tell them that Santa Claus is not real.The ban on Korea extended even to the aforementioned Uncle Henry, who was then deprived of his war stories at our Memorial Day (55) cookouts. Although he proudly wore his felt VFW hat with its flurry of pins, including ones from his tour “overseas,” Christine or Ken would quietly slip him some of his favorite Pabst or Schlitz, and in return he’d set up residence in the lawn chair (60) at the far corner of our yard, away from everyone. Somewhere back in the fuzzy clot of my teens (now, I’m at the worldly-wise age of almost- twenty), the ’88 Summer Olympics were held in Seoul. We couldn’t buck the Thorson family (65) tradition of watching absolutely everything (that winter we’d raptly watched curling, for God’s sakes!). But I was aware that pains were taken to modulate voices, vocal cords twisted to an excruciating, studied casualness until Korea (70) came out “Korea,” exactly the same way we’d say “Russia” or “Carl Lewis” or “Flo-Jo.” Then Bryant Gumbel invaded our living room with his special segment on how Korea, one of the four “Little Tiger” economic miracle countries, (75) was so enterprising that it had even made an export product out of its babies. Since the Korean War, more than a hundred thousand children, Made-in-Korea stamped on their foreheads, had left the country, their adoption fees fattening the (80) government coffers. Top that, Singapore! Gumbel’s cheery smirk seemed to say. “Well, Sarah’s really American, not Kor—” Amanda began, until the look on Christine’s (85) face—despairing, fierce—stopped her. We invent what becomes us. Q. The narrator’s statement that her mother “had been murdered” (line 2) is best taken to mean that

her mother was killed by a negligent driver.

the reputation of her mother had been severely impugned.

the death of her mother was deliberate.

her adoptive family was trying to obliterate all memory of her biological mother.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Marie Myung-Ok Lee, Somebody’s Daughter. ©2006 Beacon Press. The story is about a Korean-American girl adopted by an American family and raised in the Midwest. When I was eight, they told me that my mother’s death was preordained. She had been murdered. One Sunday after service, our minister, Reverend Jansen of the Lutheran Church of the (5) Good Shepherd, bent down in a cloud of Aqua Velva to explain. We had been learning in Sunday school about Heaven and Hell, and in the middle of class I had fallen into a panic, wondering how I would recognize my Korean mother when I saw (10) her in Heaven—or in Hell, if perhaps she and I both sinned too much. Not to worry, I was told. “God called your Korean parents home so that you could become the daughter of your (15) mother and father,” he said, his eyes sliding sidewise, for just a second. His breath smelled vaguely of toast. “It was all part of His plan—you see how much your mommy and daddy love you? When the time (20) comes, if you’re a very good girl, you, your mommy, daddy, and your sister, Amanda—the whole Thorson family—will be in heaven together, thanks to the Lord’s wonderful and mysterious ways.” “That’s why we named you Sarah,” Christine (25) and Ken added. “Because it means ‘God’s precious treasure.’” God kills, I thought then. The same God who brought us Christmas and the Easter Bunny—he murdered my mother. (30) Shortly after that Sunday, I brought up my Korean mother again, asking about the car accident, how it happened, exactly—was it like Phil Haag’s father, who fell asleep at the wheel? Or like our plumber’s teenage son who drove into a (35) semi head-on? “Sarah,” Christine said patiently, looking up from the chopping board, where she was slicing carrot discs for pot roast. “We really knew nothing about her. I’m your mommy. Let’s not (40) talk about this any more, it makes me sad.” She made little crying motions, pretending to wipe away tears, the same thing she did when I was bad, to show how I had disappointed her. I grew up in a house in which Korea had (45) always been the oddly charged word, never to be mentioned in connection to me, the same way we never said “Uncle Henry” and “alcoholic” in the same sentence. It was almost as if Ken and Christine thought I needed to be protected from (50) it, the way small children need to be protected from boors itching to tell them that Santa Claus is not real.The ban on Korea extended even to the aforementioned Uncle Henry, who was then deprived of his war stories at our Memorial Day (55) cookouts. Although he proudly wore his felt VFW hat with its flurry of pins, including ones from his tour “overseas,” Christine or Ken would quietly slip him some of his favorite Pabst or Schlitz, and in return he’d set up residence in the lawn chair (60) at the far corner of our yard, away from everyone. Somewhere back in the fuzzy clot of my teens (now, I’m at the worldly-wise age of almost- twenty), the ’88 Summer Olympics were held in Seoul. We couldn’t buck the Thorson family (65) tradition of watching absolutely everything (that winter we’d raptly watched curling, for God’s sakes!). But I was aware that pains were taken to modulate voices, vocal cords twisted to an excruciating, studied casualness until Korea (70) came out “Korea,” exactly the same way we’d say “Russia” or “Carl Lewis” or “Flo-Jo.” Then Bryant Gumbel invaded our living room with his special segment on how Korea, one of the four “Little Tiger” economic miracle countries, (75) was so enterprising that it had even made an export product out of its babies. Since the Korean War, more than a hundred thousand children, Made-in-Korea stamped on their foreheads, had left the country, their adoption fees fattening the (80) government coffers. Top that, Singapore! Gumbel’s cheery smirk seemed to say. “Well, Sarah’s really American, not Kor—” Amanda began, until the look on Christine’s (85) face—despairing, fierce—stopped her. We invent what becomes us. Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 13–16 (“God called . . . second”)

Lines 24–26 (“That’s why . . . treasure”)

Lines 48–52 (“It was almost . . . is not real”)

Lines 76–80 (“Since the Korean . . . government coffers”)

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Marie Myung-Ok Lee, Somebody’s Daughter. ©2006 Beacon Press. The story is about a Korean-American girl adopted by an American family and raised in the Midwest. When I was eight, they told me that my mother’s death was preordained. She had been murdered. One Sunday after service, our minister, Reverend Jansen of the Lutheran Church of the (5) Good Shepherd, bent down in a cloud of Aqua Velva to explain. We had been learning in Sunday school about Heaven and Hell, and in the middle of class I had fallen into a panic, wondering how I would recognize my Korean mother when I saw (10) her in Heaven—or in Hell, if perhaps she and I both sinned too much. Not to worry, I was told. “God called your Korean parents home so that you could become the daughter of your (15) mother and father,” he said, his eyes sliding sidewise, for just a second. His breath smelled vaguely of toast. “It was all part of His plan—you see how much your mommy and daddy love you? When the time (20) comes, if you’re a very good girl, you, your mommy, daddy, and your sister, Amanda—the whole Thorson family—will be in heaven together, thanks to the Lord’s wonderful and mysterious ways.” “That’s why we named you Sarah,” Christine (25) and Ken added. “Because it means ‘God’s precious treasure.’” God kills, I thought then. The same God who brought us Christmas and the Easter Bunny—he murdered my mother. (30) Shortly after that Sunday, I brought up my Korean mother again, asking about the car accident, how it happened, exactly—was it like Phil Haag’s father, who fell asleep at the wheel? Or like our plumber’s teenage son who drove into a (35) semi head-on? “Sarah,” Christine said patiently, looking up from the chopping board, where she was slicing carrot discs for pot roast. “We really knew nothing about her. I’m your mommy. Let’s not (40) talk about this any more, it makes me sad.” She made little crying motions, pretending to wipe away tears, the same thing she did when I was bad, to show how I had disappointed her. I grew up in a house in which Korea had (45) always been the oddly charged word, never to be mentioned in connection to me, the same way we never said “Uncle Henry” and “alcoholic” in the same sentence. It was almost as if Ken and Christine thought I needed to be protected from (50) it, the way small children need to be protected from boors itching to tell them that Santa Claus is not real.The ban on Korea extended even to the aforementioned Uncle Henry, who was then deprived of his war stories at our Memorial Day (55) cookouts. Although he proudly wore his felt VFW hat with its flurry of pins, including ones from his tour “overseas,” Christine or Ken would quietly slip him some of his favorite Pabst or Schlitz, and in return he’d set up residence in the lawn chair (60) at the far corner of our yard, away from everyone. Somewhere back in the fuzzy clot of my teens (now, I’m at the worldly-wise age of almost- twenty), the ’88 Summer Olympics were held in Seoul. We couldn’t buck the Thorson family (65) tradition of watching absolutely everything (that winter we’d raptly watched curling, for God’s sakes!). But I was aware that pains were taken to modulate voices, vocal cords twisted to an excruciating, studied casualness until Korea (70) came out “Korea,” exactly the same way we’d say “Russia” or “Carl Lewis” or “Flo-Jo.” Then Bryant Gumbel invaded our living room with his special segment on how Korea, one of the four “Little Tiger” economic miracle countries, (75) was so enterprising that it had even made an export product out of its babies. Since the Korean War, more than a hundred thousand children, Made-in-Korea stamped on their foreheads, had left the country, their adoption fees fattening the (80) government coffers. Top that, Singapore! Gumbel’s cheery smirk seemed to say. “Well, Sarah’s really American, not Kor—” Amanda began, until the look on Christine’s (85) face—despairing, fierce—stopped her. We invent what becomes us. Q. The “cheery smirk” (line 81) is taken by the narrator to indicate Gumbel’s

satisfaction with the publicity the Olympics were receiving.

admiration for Korea’s economic competitiveness.

pleasure that Korean children would be well cared for.

happiness that Singapore had finally been defeated.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from G. M. Fitzhenry, “Baby Pictures of the Universe.” ©2015 by College Hill Coaching. At the breathtaking Gettysburg Cyclorama, a 377-foot-long, 42-foot-high painting of the bloody 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, visitors can turn in every direction and feel as if they have been thrust (5) into the midst of perhaps the most important battle in American history, a snapshot of a chaotic chapter in the early life of a nation. Yet right now you sit in the midst of an even more spectacular cyclorama of an even more cataclysmic historical (10) event that took place billions of years ago. Unfortunately, to appreciate its full splendor, you would have to be able to see microwaves, which are invisible to our human eyes. This real-life cyclorama is the cosmic (15) microwave background (CMB) radiation, a 13-billion-year-old panoramic snapshot of the universe as it appeared the moment it first released its primordial photons. Although it is an astonishingly detailed confirmation of the Big Bang (20) theory, it is not actually a picture of the Big Bang. On a human scale, it corresponds not to the instant of childbirth, but rather the moment a swaddled one-day-old opens its eyes and keeps them open. For the first 380,000 years of its life (a mere (25) blink of an eye in cosmic history), the universe was “invisible” because its photons—the particles that are emitted from an object or event and that must reach a detector in order for us to “see” it—were trapped in a hot, opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. (30) Only when this super-heated plasma cooled to the point where protons and electrons could combine to form hydrogen atoms—a period called the “epoch of recombination”—did these photons begin to travel unimpeded through the universe. (35) Some of those photons, having traveled for half a billion generations, are just now reaching us. One of the most striking aspects of the CMB radiation is its near-uniformity, or “isotropism.” No matter where we look in the sky, the temperature of (40) the CMB radiation varies by no more than one part in 100,000. It’s almost impossible to find another real-life example of such thermal homogeneity. This uniformity is somewhat counterintuitive: the remnants of most explosions seem to spread (45) out in a spherical but non-uniform “debris field.” For instance, the embers of a firework explosion are confined to a region around the explosion, but nowhere else. So why is the CMB radiation still found everywhere in the universe, and not just on (50) its “edges?” The first reason is that the universe has no edges: it is “boundless,” just as the surface of a sphere is boundless. The second reason is that the CMB radiation did not originate from just one point in space, but from virtually every point in (55) space. Thus, every point in the modern universe is not only equally likely to be the source of the CMB radiation, it is also equally likely to be the current location of the CMB radiation. This uniformity was predicted in a theory (60) published by George Gamow in 1948. His theory also made two other predictions that have been confirmed to astonishing precision by our current data. First, Gamow predicted that the CMB radiation should have a distinctive (65) spectrum known as a “blackbody” curve. Second, he predicted that the expanding universe would have cooled this radiation to below 5 degrees Kelvin today. (70) The CMB radiation went undetected until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey became troubled by persistent background noise in a radio telescope that they had just built. Their initial explanation was that it was due to a “white (75) dielectric substance,” more commonly known as pigeon droppings. Remarkably, less than 40 miles away, Princeton researchers Robert Dicke and Dave Wilkinson had been searching for evidence supporting Gamow’s predictions, and instantly (80) knew of a much better explanation for the noise. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMB radiation. Since then, much more careful observations, made by the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (85) (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have confirmed that the CMB radiation indeed has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature of 2.725° Kelvin, barely more than 2 degrees from (90) Gamow’s guess. In addition to confirming many aspects of the Big Bang theory, these data have also helped scientists calibrate the age of the universe (13.772 ± 0.059 billion years), gauge the speed at which the universe is expanding, (95) and even verify the existence of “dark energy,” the mysterious energy that propelled the rapid expansion of the early universe. Q. This passage is primarily concerned with

chronicling the discoveries yielded by recent satellite telescopes

examining the controversies surrounding a physical theory.

discussing the analysis and significance of a cosmological phenomenon.

describing similarities bet ween the study of human history and the study of astronomy.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from G. M. Fitzhenry, “Baby Pictures of the Universe.” ©2015 by College Hill Coaching. At the breathtaking Gettysburg Cyclorama, a 377-foot-long, 42-foot-high painting of the bloody 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, visitors can turn in every direction and feel as if they have been thrust (5) into the midst of perhaps the most important battle in American history, a snapshot of a chaotic chapter in the early life of a nation. Yet right now you sit in the midst of an even more spectacular cyclorama of an even more cataclysmic historical (10) event that took place billions of years ago. Unfortunately, to appreciate its full splendor, you would have to be able to see microwaves, which are invisible to our human eyes. This real-life cyclorama is the cosmic (15) microwave background (CMB) radiation, a 13-billion-year-old panoramic snapshot of the universe as it appeared the moment it first released its primordial photons. Although it is an astonishingly detailed confirmation of the Big Bang (20) theory, it is not actually a picture of the Big Bang. On a human scale, it corresponds not to the instant of childbirth, but rather the moment a swaddled one-day-old opens its eyes and keeps them open. For the first 380,000 years of its life (a mere (25) blink of an eye in cosmic history), the universe was “invisible” because its photons—the particles that are emitted from an object or event and that must reach a detector in order for us to “see” it—were trapped in a hot, opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. (30) Only when this super-heated plasma cooled to the point where protons and electrons could combine to form hydrogen atoms—a period called the “epoch of recombination”—did these photons begin to travel unimpeded through the universe. (35) Some of those photons, having traveled for half a billion generations, are just now reaching us. One of the most striking aspects of the CMB radiation is its near-uniformity, or “isotropism.” No matter where we look in the sky, the temperature of (40) the CMB radiation varies by no more than one part in 100,000. It’s almost impossible to find another real-life example of such thermal homogeneity. This uniformity is somewhat counterintuitive: the remnants of most explosions seem to spread (45) out in a spherical but non-uniform “debris field.” For instance, the embers of a firework explosion are confined to a region around the explosion, but nowhere else. So why is the CMB radiation still found everywhere in the universe, and not just on (50) its “edges?” The first reason is that the universe has no edges: it is “boundless,” just as the surface of a sphere is boundless. The second reason is that the CMB radiation did not originate from just one point in space, but from virtually every point in (55) space. Thus, every point in the modern universe is not only equally likely to be the source of the CMB radiation, it is also equally likely to be the current location of the CMB radiation. This uniformity was predicted in a theory (60) published by George Gamow in 1948. His theory also made two other predictions that have been confirmed to astonishing precision by our current data. First, Gamow predicted that the CMB radiation should have a distinctive (65) spectrum known as a “blackbody” curve. Second, he predicted that the expanding universe would have cooled this radiation to below 5 degrees Kelvin today. (70) The CMB radiation went undetected until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey became troubled by persistent background noise in a radio telescope that they had just built. Their initial explanation was that it was due to a “white (75) dielectric substance,” more commonly known as pigeon droppings. Remarkably, less than 40 miles away, Princeton researchers Robert Dicke and Dave Wilkinson had been searching for evidence supporting Gamow’s predictions, and instantly (80) knew of a much better explanation for the noise. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMB radiation. Since then, much more careful observations, made by the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (85) (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have confirmed that the CMB radiation indeed has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature of 2.725° Kelvin, barely more than 2 degrees from (90) Gamow’s guess. In addition to confirming many aspects of the Big Bang theory, these data have also helped scientists calibrate the age of the universe (13.772 ± 0.059 billion years), gauge the speed at which the universe is expanding, (95) and even verify the existence of “dark energy,” the mysterious energy that propelled the rapid expansion of the early universe. Q. Lines 11–13 (“Unfortunately . . . human eyes”) convey the author’s disappointment in

the appropriateness of a comparison.

an audience’s level of interest.

the accessibility of a phenomenon.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from G. M. Fitzhenry, “Baby Pictures of the Universe.” ©2015 by College Hill Coaching. At the breathtaking Gettysburg Cyclorama, a 377-foot-long, 42-foot-high painting of the bloody 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, visitors can turn in every direction and feel as if they have been thrust (5) into the midst of perhaps the most important battle in American history, a snapshot of a chaotic chapter in the early life of a nation. Yet right now you sit in the midst of an even more spectacular cyclorama of an even more cataclysmic historical (10) event that took place billions of years ago. Unfortunately, to appreciate its full splendor, you would have to be able to see microwaves, which are invisible to our human eyes. This real-life cyclorama is the cosmic (15) microwave background (CMB) radiation, a 13-billion-year-old panoramic snapshot of the universe as it appeared the moment it first released its primordial photons. Although it is an astonishingly detailed confirmation of the Big Bang (20) theory, it is not actually a picture of the Big Bang. On a human scale, it corresponds not to the instant of childbirth, but rather the moment a swaddled one-day-old opens its eyes and keeps them open. For the first 380,000 years of its life (a mere (25) blink of an eye in cosmic history), the universe was “invisible” because its photons—the particles that are emitted from an object or event and that must reach a detector in order for us to “see” it—were trapped in a hot, opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. (30) Only when this super-heated plasma cooled to the point where protons and electrons could combine to form hydrogen atoms—a period called the “epoch of recombination”—did these photons begin to travel unimpeded through the universe. (35) Some of those photons, having traveled for half a billion generations, are just now reaching us. One of the most striking aspects of the CMB radiation is its near-uniformity, or “isotropism.” No matter where we look in the sky, the temperature of (40) the CMB radiation varies by no more than one part in 100,000. It’s almost impossible to find another real-life example of such thermal homogeneity. This uniformity is somewhat counterintuitive: the remnants of most explosions seem to spread (45) out in a spherical but non-uniform “debris field.” For instance, the embers of a firework explosion are confined to a region around the explosion, but nowhere else. So why is the CMB radiation still found everywhere in the universe, and not just on (50) its “edges?” The first reason is that the universe has no edges: it is “boundless,” just as the surface of a sphere is boundless. The second reason is that the CMB radiation did not originate from just one point in space, but from virtually every point in (55) space. Thus, every point in the modern universe is not only equally likely to be the source of the CMB radiation, it is also equally likely to be the current location of the CMB radiation. This uniformity was predicted in a theory (60) published by George Gamow in 1948. His theory also made two other predictions that have been confirmed to astonishing precision by our current data. First, Gamow predicted that the CMB radiation should have a distinctive (65) spectrum known as a “blackbody” curve. Second, he predicted that the expanding universe would have cooled this radiation to below 5 degrees Kelvin today. (70) The CMB radiation went undetected until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey became troubled by persistent background noise in a radio telescope that they had just built. Their initial explanation was that it was due to a “white (75) dielectric substance,” more commonly known as pigeon droppings. Remarkably, less than 40 miles away, Princeton researchers Robert Dicke and Dave Wilkinson had been searching for evidence supporting Gamow’s predictions, and instantly (80) knew of a much better explanation for the noise. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMB radiation. Since then, much more careful observations, made by the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (85) (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have confirmed that the CMB radiation indeed has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature of 2.725° Kelvin, barely more than 2 degrees from (90) Gamow’s guess. In addition to confirming many aspects of the Big Bang theory, these data have also helped scientists calibrate the age of the universe (13.772 ± 0.059 billion years), gauge the speed at which the universe is expanding, (95) and even verify the existence of “dark energy,” the mysterious energy that propelled the rapid expansion of the early universe. Q. The quotation marks around the words “invisible” (line 26) and “see” (line 28) serve primarily to

draw attention to two relatively recent coinages.

imply that the author is speaking speculatively.

suggest an irony implicit in conventional terms.

indicate a technical usage of common words.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from G. M. Fitzhenry, “Baby Pictures of the Universe.” ©2015 by College Hill Coaching. At the breathtaking Gettysburg Cyclorama, a 377-foot-long, 42-foot-high painting of the bloody 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, visitors can turn in every direction and feel as if they have been thrust (5) into the midst of perhaps the most important battle in American history, a snapshot of a chaotic chapter in the early life of a nation. Yet right now you sit in the midst of an even more spectacular cyclorama of an even more cataclysmic historical (10) event that took place billions of years ago. Unfortunately, to appreciate its full splendor, you would have to be able to see microwaves, which are invisible to our human eyes. This real-life cyclorama is the cosmic (15) microwave background (CMB) radiation, a 13-billion-year-old panoramic snapshot of the universe as it appeared the moment it first released its primordial photons. Although it is an astonishingly detailed confirmation of the Big Bang (20) theory, it is not actually a picture of the Big Bang. On a human scale, it corresponds not to the instant of childbirth, but rather the moment a swaddled one-day-old opens its eyes and keeps them open. For the first 380,000 years of its life (a mere (25) blink of an eye in cosmic history), the universe was “invisible” because its photons—the particles that are emitted from an object or event and that must reach a detector in order for us to “see” it—were trapped in a hot, opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. (30) Only when this super-heated plasma cooled to the point where protons and electrons could combine to form hydrogen atoms—a period called the “epoch of recombination”—did these photons begin to travel unimpeded through the universe. (35) Some of those photons, having traveled for half a billion generations, are just now reaching us. One of the most striking aspects of the CMB radiation is its near-uniformity, or “isotropism.” No matter where we look in the sky, the temperature of (40) the CMB radiation varies by no more than one part in 100,000. It’s almost impossible to find another real-life example of such thermal homogeneity. This uniformity is somewhat counterintuitive: the remnants of most explosions seem to spread (45) out in a spherical but non-uniform “debris field.” For instance, the embers of a firework explosion are confined to a region around the explosion, but nowhere else. So why is the CMB radiation still found everywhere in the universe, and not just on (50) its “edges?” The first reason is that the universe has no edges: it is “boundless,” just as the surface of a sphere is boundless. The second reason is that the CMB radiation did not originate from just one point in space, but from virtually every point in (55) space. Thus, every point in the modern universe is not only equally likely to be the source of the CMB radiation, it is also equally likely to be the current location of the CMB radiation. This uniformity was predicted in a theory (60) published by George Gamow in 1948. His theory also made two other predictions that have been confirmed to astonishing precision by our current data. First, Gamow predicted that the CMB radiation should have a distinctive (65) spectrum known as a “blackbody” curve. Second, he predicted that the expanding universe would have cooled this radiation to below 5 degrees Kelvin today. (70) The CMB radiation went undetected until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey became troubled by persistent background noise in a radio telescope that they had just built. Their initial explanation was that it was due to a “white (75) dielectric substance,” more commonly known as pigeon droppings. Remarkably, less than 40 miles away, Princeton researchers Robert Dicke and Dave Wilkinson had been searching for evidence supporting Gamow’s predictions, and instantly (80) knew of a much better explanation for the noise. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMB radiation. Since then, much more careful observations, made by the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (85) (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have confirmed that the CMB radiation indeed has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature of 2.725° Kelvin, barely more than 2 degrees from (90) Gamow’s guess. In addition to confirming many aspects of the Big Bang theory, these data have also helped scientists calibrate the age of the universe (13.772 ± 0.059 billion years), gauge the speed at which the universe is expanding, (95) and even verify the existence of “dark energy,” the mysterious energy that propelled the rapid expansion of the early universe. Q. The “moment a swaddled one-day-old opens its eyes” (lines 22–23) corresponds to the instant that

scientists first discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation.

all of the particles and energy in the universe were created in the Big Bang.

the cosmic microwave background radiation was first released from the hydrogen plasma.

George Gamow first published his theory about the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from G. M. Fitzhenry, “Baby Pictures of the Universe.” ©2015 by College Hill Coaching. At the breathtaking Gettysburg Cyclorama, a 377-foot-long, 42-foot-high painting of the bloody 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, visitors can turn in every direction and feel as if they have been thrust (5) into the midst of perhaps the most important battle in American history, a snapshot of a chaotic chapter in the early life of a nation. Yet right now you sit in the midst of an even more spectacular cyclorama of an even more cataclysmic historical (10) event that took place billions of years ago. Unfortunately, to appreciate its full splendor, you would have to be able to see microwaves, which are invisible to our human eyes. This real-life cyclorama is the cosmic (15) microwave background (CMB) radiation, a 13-billion-year-old panoramic snapshot of the universe as it appeared the moment it first released its primordial photons. Although it is an astonishingly detailed confirmation of the Big Bang (20) theory, it is not actually a picture of the Big Bang. On a human scale, it corresponds not to the instant of childbirth, but rather the moment a swaddled one-day-old opens its eyes and keeps them open. For the first 380,000 years of its life (a mere (25) blink of an eye in cosmic history), the universe was “invisible” because its photons—the particles that are emitted from an object or event and that must reach a detector in order for us to “see” it—were trapped in a hot, opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. (30) Only when this super-heated plasma cooled to the point where protons and electrons could combine to form hydrogen atoms—a period called the “epoch of recombination”—did these photons begin to travel unimpeded through the universe. (35) Some of those photons, having traveled for half a billion generations, are just now reaching us. One of the most striking aspects of the CMB radiation is its near-uniformity, or “isotropism.” No matter where we look in the sky, the temperature of (40) the CMB radiation varies by no more than one part in 100,000. It’s almost impossible to find another real-life example of such thermal homogeneity. This uniformity is somewhat counterintuitive: the remnants of most explosions seem to spread (45) out in a spherical but non-uniform “debris field.” For instance, the embers of a firework explosion are confined to a region around the explosion, but nowhere else. So why is the CMB radiation still found everywhere in the universe, and not just on (50) its “edges?” The first reason is that the universe has no edges: it is “boundless,” just as the surface of a sphere is boundless. The second reason is that the CMB radiation did not originate from just one point in space, but from virtually every point in (55) space. Thus, every point in the modern universe is not only equally likely to be the source of the CMB radiation, it is also equally likely to be the current location of the CMB radiation. This uniformity was predicted in a theory (60) published by George Gamow in 1948. His theory also made two other predictions that have been confirmed to astonishing precision by our current data. First, Gamow predicted that the CMB radiation should have a distinctive (65) spectrum known as a “blackbody” curve. Second, he predicted that the expanding universe would have cooled this radiation to below 5 degrees Kelvin today. (70) The CMB radiation went undetected until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey became troubled by persistent background noise in a radio telescope that they had just built. Their initial explanation was that it was due to a “white (75) dielectric substance,” more commonly known as pigeon droppings. Remarkably, less than 40 miles away, Princeton researchers Robert Dicke and Dave Wilkinson had been searching for evidence supporting Gamow’s predictions, and instantly (80) knew of a much better explanation for the noise. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMB radiation. Since then, much more careful observations, made by the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (85) (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have confirmed that the CMB radiation indeed has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature of 2.725° Kelvin, barely more than 2 degrees from (90) Gamow’s guess. In addition to confirming many aspects of the Big Bang theory, these data have also helped scientists calibrate the age of the universe (13.772 ± 0.059 billion years), gauge the speed at which the universe is expanding, (95) and even verify the existence of “dark energy,” the mysterious energy that propelled the rapid expansion of the early universe. Q. Which of the following can be inferred about the work that earned Penzias and Wilson the Nobel Prize?

It was the product of decades of research.

It was the result of an accidental discovery.

It depended greatly on the data from the COBE satellite.

It provided a more plausible alternative to Gamow’s theory.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from G. M. Fitzhenry, “Baby Pictures of the Universe.” ©2015 by College Hill Coaching. At the breathtaking Gettysburg Cyclorama, a 377-foot-long, 42-foot-high painting of the bloody 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, visitors can turn in every direction and feel as if they have been thrust (5) into the midst of perhaps the most important battle in American history, a snapshot of a chaotic chapter in the early life of a nation. Yet right now you sit in the midst of an even more spectacular cyclorama of an even more cataclysmic historical (10) event that took place billions of years ago. Unfortunately, to appreciate its full splendor, you would have to be able to see microwaves, which are invisible to our human eyes. This real-life cyclorama is the cosmic (15) microwave background (CMB) radiation, a 13-billion-year-old panoramic snapshot of the universe as it appeared the moment it first released its primordial photons. Although it is an astonishingly detailed confirmation of the Big Bang (20) theory, it is not actually a picture of the Big Bang. On a human scale, it corresponds not to the instant of childbirth, but rather the moment a swaddled one-day-old opens its eyes and keeps them open. For the first 380,000 years of its life (a mere (25) blink of an eye in cosmic history), the universe was “invisible” because its photons—the particles that are emitted from an object or event and that must reach a detector in order for us to “see” it—were trapped in a hot, opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. (30) Only when this super-heated plasma cooled to the point where protons and electrons could combine to form hydrogen atoms—a period called the “epoch of recombination”—did these photons begin to travel unimpeded through the universe. (35) Some of those photons, having traveled for half a billion generations, are just now reaching us. One of the most striking aspects of the CMB radiation is its near-uniformity, or “isotropism.” No matter where we look in the sky, the temperature of (40) the CMB radiation varies by no more than one part in 100,000. It’s almost impossible to find another real-life example of such thermal homogeneity. This uniformity is somewhat counterintuitive: the remnants of most explosions seem to spread (45) out in a spherical but non-uniform “debris field.” For instance, the embers of a firework explosion are confined to a region around the explosion, but nowhere else. So why is the CMB radiation still found everywhere in the universe, and not just on (50) its “edges?” The first reason is that the universe has no edges: it is “boundless,” just as the surface of a sphere is boundless. The second reason is that the CMB radiation did not originate from just one point in space, but from virtually every point in (55) space. Thus, every point in the modern universe is not only equally likely to be the source of the CMB radiation, it is also equally likely to be the current location of the CMB radiation. This uniformity was predicted in a theory (60) published by George Gamow in 1948. His theory also made two other predictions that have been confirmed to astonishing precision by our current data. First, Gamow predicted that the CMB radiation should have a distinctive (65) spectrum known as a “blackbody” curve. Second, he predicted that the expanding universe would have cooled this radiation to below 5 degrees Kelvin today. (70) The CMB radiation went undetected until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey became troubled by persistent background noise in a radio telescope that they had just built. Their initial explanation was that it was due to a “white (75) dielectric substance,” more commonly known as pigeon droppings. Remarkably, less than 40 miles away, Princeton researchers Robert Dicke and Dave Wilkinson had been searching for evidence supporting Gamow’s predictions, and instantly (80) knew of a much better explanation for the noise. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMB radiation. Since then, much more careful observations, made by the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (85) (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have confirmed that the CMB radiation indeed has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature of 2.725° Kelvin, barely more than 2 degrees from (90) Gamow’s guess. In addition to confirming many aspects of the Big Bang theory, these data have also helped scientists calibrate the age of the universe (13.772 ± 0.059 billion years), gauge the speed at which the universe is expanding, (95) and even verify the existence of “dark energy,” the mysterious energy that propelled the rapid expansion of the early universe. Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 60–63 (“His theory . . . current data”)

Lines 73–76 (“Their initial . . . droppings”)

Lines 83–90 (“Since then . . . Gamow’s guess”)

Lines 90–97 (“In addition . . . early universe”)

OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 Free MCQ Practice Test with Solutions

EduRev

All Courses

Open App

Important Questions for OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6

Find all the important questions for OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 at EduRev.Get fully prepared for OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 with EduRev's comprehensive question bank and test resources. Our platform offers a diverse range of question papers covering various topics within the OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 syllabus. Whether you need to review specific subjects or assess your overall readiness, EduRev has you covered. The questions are designed to challenge you and help you gain confidence in tackling the actual exam. Maximize your chances of success by utilizing EduRev's extensive collection of OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 resources.

OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 MCQs with Answers

Prepare for the OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 within the SAT exam with comprehensive MCQs and answers at EduRev. Our platform offers a wide range of practice papers, question papers, and mock tests to familiarize you with the exam pattern and syllabus. Access the best books, study materials, and notes curated by toppers to enhance your preparation. Stay updated with the exam date and receive expert preparation tips and paper analysis. Visit EduRev's official website today and access a wealth of videos and coaching resources to excel in your exam.

Online Tests for OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6

Practice with a wide array of question papers that follow the exam pattern and syllabus. Our platform offers a user-friendly interface, allowing you to track your progress and identify areas for improvement. Access detailed solutions and explanations for each test to enhance your understanding of concepts. With EduRev's Online Tests, you can build confidence, boost your performance, and ace OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 6 with ease. Join thousands of successful students who have benefited from our trusted online resources.

Education Revolution