Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Saki, “The Schartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911. Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform of the small wayside station and took a turn or two up and down its uninteresting length, to kill time till the train should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then, (5) in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse struggling with a more than ample load, and a carter of the sort that seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animal that helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlotta promptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather a (10) different complexion on the struggle. Certain of her acquaintances were wont to give her plentiful admonition as to the undesirability of interfering on behalf of a distressed animal, such interference being “none of her business.” Only once had she put the (15) doctrine of non-interference into practice, when one of its most eloquent exponents had been besieged for nearly three hours in a small and extremely uncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, while Lady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, had (20) proceeded with the water-colour sketch she was engaged on, and refused to interfere between the boar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lost the friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On this occasion she merely lost the train, which gave way to (25) the first sign of impatience it had shown throughout the journey, and steamed off without her. She bore the desertion with philosophical indifference; her friends and relations were thoroughly well used to the fact of her luggage arriving without her. (30) She wired a vague non-committal message to her destination to say that she was coming on “by another train.” Before she had time to think what her next move might be she was confronted by an imposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking a (35) prolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks. “You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve come to meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admitted of very little argument. “Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta to (40) herself with dangerous meekness. “I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “and where, pray, is your luggage?” “It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess, falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absent (45) are always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact, behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve just telegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearer approach to truth. “How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “these (50) railway companies are so careless. However, my maid can lend you things for the night,” and she led the way to her car. During the drive to the Quabarl mansion Lady Carlotta was impressively introduced to the (55) nature of the charge that had been thrust upon her; she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate, sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistic temperament highly developed, and that Viola was something or other else of a mould equally (60) commonplace among children of that class and type in the twentieth century. “I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs. Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. In their history lessons, for instance, you must try to (65) make them feel that they are being introduced to the life-stories of men and women who really lived, not merely committing a mass of names and dates to memory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talk at meal-times several days in the week.” (70) “I shall talk French four days of the week and Russian in the remaining three.” “Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in the house speaks or understands Russian.” “That will not embarrass me in the least,” said (75) Lady Carlotta coldly. Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, was knocked off her perch. She was one of those imperfectly self-assured individuals who are magnificent and autocratic as long as they are not (80) seriously opposed. The least show of unexpected resistance goes a long way towards rendering them cowed and apologetic. When the new governess failed to express wondering admiration of the large newly-purchased and expensive car, and lightly (85) alluded to the superior advantages of one or two makes which had just been put on the market, the discomfiture of her patroness became almost abject. Her feelings were those which might have animated a general of ancient warfaring days, on beholding his (90) heaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off the field by slingers and javelin throwers. Q. Which choice best summarizes the passage?

A woman weighs the positive and negativeaspects of accepting a new job.

A woman does not correct a stranger whomistakes her for someone else.

A woman impersonates someone else to seekrevenge on an acquaintance.

A woman takes an immediate dislike to her newemployer.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Saki, “The Schartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911. Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform of the small wayside station and took a turn or two up and down its uninteresting length, to kill time till the train should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then, (5) in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse struggling with a more than ample load, and a carter of the sort that seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animal that helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlotta promptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather a (10) different complexion on the struggle. Certain of her acquaintances were wont to give her plentiful admonition as to the undesirability of interfering on behalf of a distressed animal, such interference being “none of her business.” Only once had she put the (15) doctrine of non-interference into practice, when one of its most eloquent exponents had been besieged for nearly three hours in a small and extremely uncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, while Lady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, had (20) proceeded with the water-colour sketch she was engaged on, and refused to interfere between the boar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lost the friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On this occasion she merely lost the train, which gave way to (25) the first sign of impatience it had shown throughout the journey, and steamed off without her. She bore the desertion with philosophical indifference; her friends and relations were thoroughly well used to the fact of her luggage arriving without her. (30) She wired a vague non-committal message to her destination to say that she was coming on “by another train.” Before she had time to think what her next move might be she was confronted by an imposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking a (35) prolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks. “You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve come to meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admitted of very little argument. “Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta to (40) herself with dangerous meekness. “I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “and where, pray, is your luggage?” “It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess, falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absent (45) are always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact, behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve just telegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearer approach to truth. “How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “these (50) railway companies are so careless. However, my maid can lend you things for the night,” and she led the way to her car. During the drive to the Quabarl mansion Lady Carlotta was impressively introduced to the (55) nature of the charge that had been thrust upon her; she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate, sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistic temperament highly developed, and that Viola was something or other else of a mould equally (60) commonplace among children of that class and type in the twentieth century. “I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs. Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. In their history lessons, for instance, you must try to (65) make them feel that they are being introduced to the life-stories of men and women who really lived, not merely committing a mass of names and dates to memory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talk at meal-times several days in the week.” (70) “I shall talk French four days of the week and Russian in the remaining three.” “Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in the house speaks or understands Russian.” “That will not embarrass me in the least,” said (75) Lady Carlotta coldly. Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, was knocked off her perch. She was one of those imperfectly self-assured individuals who are magnificent and autocratic as long as they are not (80) seriously opposed. The least show of unexpected resistance goes a long way towards rendering them cowed and apologetic. When the new governess failed to express wondering admiration of the large newly-purchased and expensive car, and lightly (85) alluded to the superior advantages of one or two makes which had just been put on the market, the discomfiture of her patroness became almost abject. Her feelings were those which might have animated a general of ancient warfaring days, on beholding his (90) heaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off the field by slingers and javelin throwers. Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 10-14 (“Certain... business”)

Lines 22-23 (“It is... lady”)

Lines 23-26 (“On this... her”)

Lines 30-32 (“She... train”)

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Saki, “The Schartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911. Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform of the small wayside station and took a turn or two up and down its uninteresting length, to kill time till the train should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then, (5) in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse struggling with a more than ample load, and a carter of the sort that seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animal that helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlotta promptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather a (10) different complexion on the struggle. Certain of her acquaintances were wont to give her plentiful admonition as to the undesirability of interfering on behalf of a distressed animal, such interference being “none of her business.” Only once had she put the (15) doctrine of non-interference into practice, when one of its most eloquent exponents had been besieged for nearly three hours in a small and extremely uncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, while Lady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, had (20) proceeded with the water-colour sketch she was engaged on, and refused to interfere between the boar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lost the friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On this occasion she merely lost the train, which gave way to (25) the first sign of impatience it had shown throughout the journey, and steamed off without her. She bore the desertion with philosophical indifference; her friends and relations were thoroughly well used to the fact of her luggage arriving without her. (30) She wired a vague non-committal message to her destination to say that she was coming on “by another train.” Before she had time to think what her next move might be she was confronted by an imposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking a (35) prolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks. “You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve come to meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admitted of very little argument. “Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta to (40) herself with dangerous meekness. “I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “and where, pray, is your luggage?” “It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess, falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absent (45) are always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact, behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve just telegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearer approach to truth. “How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “these (50) railway companies are so careless. However, my maid can lend you things for the night,” and she led the way to her car. During the drive to the Quabarl mansion Lady Carlotta was impressively introduced to the (55) nature of the charge that had been thrust upon her; she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate, sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistic temperament highly developed, and that Viola was something or other else of a mould equally (60) commonplace among children of that class and type in the twentieth century. “I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs. Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. In their history lessons, for instance, you must try to (65) make them feel that they are being introduced to the life-stories of men and women who really lived, not merely committing a mass of names and dates to memory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talk at meal-times several days in the week.” (70) “I shall talk French four days of the week and Russian in the remaining three.” “Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in the house speaks or understands Russian.” “That will not embarrass me in the least,” said (75) Lady Carlotta coldly. Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, was knocked off her perch. She was one of those imperfectly self-assured individuals who are magnificent and autocratic as long as they are not (80) seriously opposed. The least show of unexpected resistance goes a long way towards rendering them cowed and apologetic. When the new governess failed to express wondering admiration of the large newly-purchased and expensive car, and lightly (85) alluded to the superior advantages of one or two makes which had just been put on the market, the discomfiture of her patroness became almost abject. Her feelings were those which might have animated a general of ancient warfaring days, on beholding his (90) heaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off the field by slingers and javelin throwers. Q. The description of how Lady Carlotta “put the doctrine of non-interference into practice” (lines 14-15) mainly serves to

foreshadow her capacity for deception.

illustrate the subtle cruelty in her nature.

provide a humorous insight into her character.

explain a surprising change in her behavior.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Saki, “The Schartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911. Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform of the small wayside station and took a turn or two up and down its uninteresting length, to kill time till the train should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then, (5) in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse struggling with a more than ample load, and a carter of the sort that seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animal that helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlotta promptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather a (10) different complexion on the struggle. Certain of her acquaintances were wont to give her plentiful admonition as to the undesirability of interfering on behalf of a distressed animal, such interference being “none of her business.” Only once had she put the (15) doctrine of non-interference into practice, when one of its most eloquent exponents had been besieged for nearly three hours in a small and extremely uncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, while Lady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, had (20) proceeded with the water-colour sketch she was engaged on, and refused to interfere between the boar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lost the friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On this occasion she merely lost the train, which gave way to (25) the first sign of impatience it had shown throughout the journey, and steamed off without her. She bore the desertion with philosophical indifference; her friends and relations were thoroughly well used to the fact of her luggage arriving without her. (30) She wired a vague non-committal message to her destination to say that she was coming on “by another train.” Before she had time to think what her next move might be she was confronted by an imposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking a (35) prolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks. “You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve come to meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admitted of very little argument. “Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta to (40) herself with dangerous meekness. “I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “and where, pray, is your luggage?” “It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess, falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absent (45) are always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact, behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve just telegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearer approach to truth. “How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “these (50) railway companies are so careless. However, my maid can lend you things for the night,” and she led the way to her car. During the drive to the Quabarl mansion Lady Carlotta was impressively introduced to the (55) nature of the charge that had been thrust upon her; she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate, sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistic temperament highly developed, and that Viola was something or other else of a mould equally (60) commonplace among children of that class and type in the twentieth century. “I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs. Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. In their history lessons, for instance, you must try to (65) make them feel that they are being introduced to the life-stories of men and women who really lived, not merely committing a mass of names and dates to memory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talk at meal-times several days in the week.” (70) “I shall talk French four days of the week and Russian in the remaining three.” “Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in the house speaks or understands Russian.” “That will not embarrass me in the least,” said (75) Lady Carlotta coldly. Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, was knocked off her perch. She was one of those imperfectly self-assured individuals who are magnificent and autocratic as long as they are not (80) seriously opposed. The least show of unexpected resistance goes a long way towards rendering them cowed and apologetic. When the new governess failed to express wondering admiration of the large newly-purchased and expensive car, and lightly (85) alluded to the superior advantages of one or two makes which had just been put on the market, the discomfiture of her patroness became almost abject. Her feelings were those which might have animated a general of ancient warfaring days, on beholding his (90) heaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off the field by slingers and javelin throwers. Q. The narrator indicates that Claude, Wilfrid, Irene, and Viola are

similar to many of their peers.

unusually creative and intelligent.

hostile to the idea of a governess.

more educated than others of their age.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Saki, “The Schartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911. Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform of the small wayside station and took a turn or two up and down its uninteresting length, to kill time till the train should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then, (5) in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse struggling with a more than ample load, and a carter of the sort that seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animal that helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlotta promptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather a (10) different complexion on the struggle. Certain of her acquaintances were wont to give her plentiful admonition as to the undesirability of interfering on behalf of a distressed animal, such interference being “none of her business.” Only once had she put the (15) doctrine of non-interference into practice, when one of its most eloquent exponents had been besieged for nearly three hours in a small and extremely uncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, while Lady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, had (20) proceeded with the water-colour sketch she was engaged on, and refused to interfere between the boar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lost the friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On this occasion she merely lost the train, which gave way to (25) the first sign of impatience it had shown throughout the journey, and steamed off without her. She bore the desertion with philosophical indifference; her friends and relations were thoroughly well used to the fact of her luggage arriving without her. (30) She wired a vague non-committal message to her destination to say that she was coming on “by another train.” Before she had time to think what her next move might be she was confronted by an imposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking a (35) prolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks. “You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve come to meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admitted of very little argument. “Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta to (40) herself with dangerous meekness. “I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “and where, pray, is your luggage?” “It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess, falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absent (45) are always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact, behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve just telegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearer approach to truth. “How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “these (50) railway companies are so careless. However, my maid can lend you things for the night,” and she led the way to her car. During the drive to the Quabarl mansion Lady Carlotta was impressively introduced to the (55) nature of the charge that had been thrust upon her; she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate, sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistic temperament highly developed, and that Viola was something or other else of a mould equally (60) commonplace among children of that class and type in the twentieth century. “I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs. Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. In their history lessons, for instance, you must try to (65) make them feel that they are being introduced to the life-stories of men and women who really lived, not merely committing a mass of names and dates to memory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talk at meal-times several days in the week.” (70) “I shall talk French four days of the week and Russian in the remaining three.” “Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in the house speaks or understands Russian.” “That will not embarrass me in the least,” said (75) Lady Carlotta coldly. Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, was knocked off her perch. She was one of those imperfectly self-assured individuals who are magnificent and autocratic as long as they are not (80) seriously opposed. The least show of unexpected resistance goes a long way towards rendering them cowed and apologetic. When the new governess failed to express wondering admiration of the large newly-purchased and expensive car, and lightly (85) alluded to the superior advantages of one or two makes which had just been put on the market, the discomfiture of her patroness became almost abject. Her feelings were those which might have animated a general of ancient warfaring days, on beholding his (90) heaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off the field by slingers and javelin throwers. Q. As presented in the passage, Mrs. Quabarl is best described as

superficially kind but actually selfish.

outwardly imposing but easily defied.

socially successful but irrationally bitter.

naturally generous but frequently imprudent.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Saki, “The Schartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911. Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform of the small wayside station and took a turn or two up and down its uninteresting length, to kill time till the train should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then, (5) in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse struggling with a more than ample load, and a carter of the sort that seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animal that helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlotta promptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather a (10) different complexion on the struggle. Certain of her acquaintances were wont to give her plentiful admonition as to the undesirability of interfering on behalf of a distressed animal, such interference being “none of her business.” Only once had she put the (15) doctrine of non-interference into practice, when one of its most eloquent exponents had been besieged for nearly three hours in a small and extremely uncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, while Lady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, had (20) proceeded with the water-colour sketch she was engaged on, and refused to interfere between the boar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lost the friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On this occasion she merely lost the train, which gave way to (25) the first sign of impatience it had shown throughout the journey, and steamed off without her. She bore the desertion with philosophical indifference; her friends and relations were thoroughly well used to the fact of her luggage arriving without her. (30) She wired a vague non-committal message to her destination to say that she was coming on “by another train.” Before she had time to think what her next move might be she was confronted by an imposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking a (35) prolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks. “You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve come to meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admitted of very little argument. “Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta to (40) herself with dangerous meekness. “I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “and where, pray, is your luggage?” “It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess, falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absent (45) are always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact, behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve just telegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearer approach to truth. “How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “these (50) railway companies are so careless. However, my maid can lend you things for the night,” and she led the way to her car. During the drive to the Quabarl mansion Lady Carlotta was impressively introduced to the (55) nature of the charge that had been thrust upon her; she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate, sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistic temperament highly developed, and that Viola was something or other else of a mould equally (60) commonplace among children of that class and type in the twentieth century. “I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs. Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. In their history lessons, for instance, you must try to (65) make them feel that they are being introduced to the life-stories of men and women who really lived, not merely committing a mass of names and dates to memory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talk at meal-times several days in the week.” (70) “I shall talk French four days of the week and Russian in the remaining three.” “Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in the house speaks or understands Russian.” “That will not embarrass me in the least,” said (75) Lady Carlotta coldly. Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, was knocked off her perch. She was one of those imperfectly self-assured individuals who are magnificent and autocratic as long as they are not (80) seriously opposed. The least show of unexpected resistance goes a long way towards rendering them cowed and apologetic. When the new governess failed to express wondering admiration of the large newly-purchased and expensive car, and lightly (85) alluded to the superior advantages of one or two makes which had just been put on the market, the discomfiture of her patroness became almost abject. Her feelings were those which might have animated a general of ancient warfaring days, on beholding his (90) heaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off the field by slingers and javelin throwers. Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 49-50 (“How... careless”)

Lines 62-68 (“I wish... memory”)

Lines 70-73 (“I shall... Russian”)

Lines 77-82 (“She was... apologetic”)

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from Taras Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012 by Taras Grescoe. Though there are 600 million cars on the planet, and counting, there are also seven billion people, which means that for the vast majority of us getting around involves taking buses, ferryboats, commuter (5) trains, streetcars, and subways. In other words, traveling to work, school, or the market means being a straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile. (10) Half the population of New York, Toronto, and London do not own cars. Public transport is how most of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’s most populous continents, travel. Every day, subway systems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-four (15) times the number carried by all the world’s airplanes, and the global public transport market is now valued at $428 billion annually. A century and a half after the invention of the internal combustion engine, private car ownership is still an anomaly. (20) And yet public transportation, in many minds, is the opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort for those with one too many impaired driving charges, too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to get behind the wheel of a car. In much of North (25) America, they are right: taking transit is a depressing experience. Anybody who has waited far too long on a street corner for the privilege of boarding a lurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage onto subways and shuttles to get to a big city airport, (30) knows that transit on this continent tends to be underfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Given the opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in a car almost always gets you to your destination more quickly. (35) It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, public transport can be faster, more comfortable, and cheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai, German-made magnetic levitation trains skim over elevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking people (40) to the airport at a third of the speed of sound. In provincial French towns, electric-powered streetcars run silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrow streets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones. From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speed (45) trains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metro networks, allowing commuters to work on laptops as they prepare for same-day meetings in once distant capital cities. In Latin America, China, and India, working people board fast-loading buses that move (50) like subway trains along dedicated busways, leaving the sedans and SUVs of the rich mired in dawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities have transformed their streets into cycle-path freeways, making giant strides in public health and safety and (55) the sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in the process turning the workaday bicycle into a viable form of mass transit. If you credit the demographers, this transit trend has legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthood (60) around the turn of the century and now outnumber baby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, and are far more willing than their parents to ride buses and subways. Part of the reason is their ease with iPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: you (65) can get some serious texting done when you’re not driving, and earbuds offer effective insulation from all but the most extreme commuting annoyances. Even though there are more teenagers in the country than ever, only ten million have a driver’s license (70) (versus twelve million a generation ago). Baby boomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaver suburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent is favoring older cities and compact towns where they have the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors, (75) too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, there will be 64 million Americans over the age of sixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especially those near light-rail or subway stations, are (80) commanding enormous price premiums over suburban homes. The experience of European and Asian cities shows that if you make buses, subways, and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, a surprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt to (85) ride rather than drive. Q. What function does the third paragraph (lines 20-34) serve in the passage as a whole?

It acknowledges that a practice favored by the author of the passage has some limitations.

It illustrates with detail the arguments made in the first two paragraphs of the passage.

It gives an overview of a problem that has not been sufficiently addressed by the experts mentioned in the passage.

It advocates for abandoning a practice for which the passage as a whole provides mostly favorable data.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from Taras Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012 by Taras Grescoe. Though there are 600 million cars on the planet, and counting, there are also seven billion people, which means that for the vast majority of us getting around involves taking buses, ferryboats, commuter (5) trains, streetcars, and subways. In other words, traveling to work, school, or the market means being a straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile. (10) Half the population of New York, Toronto, and London do not own cars. Public transport is how most of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’s most populous continents, travel. Every day, subway systems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-four (15) times the number carried by all the world’s airplanes, and the global public transport market is now valued at $428 billion annually. A century and a half after the invention of the internal combustion engine, private car ownership is still an anomaly. (20) And yet public transportation, in many minds, is the opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort for those with one too many impaired driving charges, too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to get behind the wheel of a car. In much of North (25) America, they are right: taking transit is a depressing experience. Anybody who has waited far too long on a street corner for the privilege of boarding a lurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage onto subways and shuttles to get to a big city airport, (30) knows that transit on this continent tends to be underfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Given the opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in a car almost always gets you to your destination more quickly. (35) It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, public transport can be faster, more comfortable, and cheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai, German-made magnetic levitation trains skim over elevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking people (40) to the airport at a third of the speed of sound. In provincial French towns, electric-powered streetcars run silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrow streets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones. From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speed (45) trains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metro networks, allowing commuters to work on laptops as they prepare for same-day meetings in once distant capital cities. In Latin America, China, and India, working people board fast-loading buses that move (50) like subway trains along dedicated busways, leaving the sedans and SUVs of the rich mired in dawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities have transformed their streets into cycle-path freeways, making giant strides in public health and safety and (55) the sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in the process turning the workaday bicycle into a viable form of mass transit. If you credit the demographers, this transit trend has legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthood (60) around the turn of the century and now outnumber baby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, and are far more willing than their parents to ride buses and subways. Part of the reason is their ease with iPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: you (65) can get some serious texting done when you’re not driving, and earbuds offer effective insulation from all but the most extreme commuting annoyances. Even though there are more teenagers in the country than ever, only ten million have a driver’s license (70) (versus twelve million a generation ago). Baby boomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaver suburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent is favoring older cities and compact towns where they have the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors, (75) too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, there will be 64 million Americans over the age of sixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especially those near light-rail or subway stations, are (80) commanding enormous price premiums over suburban homes. The experience of European and Asian cities shows that if you make buses, subways, and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, a surprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt to (85) ride rather than drive. Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 5-9 (“In... automobile”)

Lines 24-26 (“In... experience”)

Lines 32-34 (“Hopping... quickly”)

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from Taras Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012 by Taras Grescoe. Though there are 600 million cars on the planet, and counting, there are also seven billion people, which means that for the vast majority of us getting around involves taking buses, ferryboats, commuter (5) trains, streetcars, and subways. In other words, traveling to work, school, or the market means being a straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile. (10) Half the population of New York, Toronto, and London do not own cars. Public transport is how most of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’s most populous continents, travel. Every day, subway systems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-four (15) times the number carried by all the world’s airplanes, and the global public transport market is now valued at $428 billion annually. A century and a half after the invention of the internal combustion engine, private car ownership is still an anomaly. (20) And yet public transportation, in many minds, is the opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort for those with one too many impaired driving charges, too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to get behind the wheel of a car. In much of North (25) America, they are right: taking transit is a depressing experience. Anybody who has waited far too long on a street corner for the privilege of boarding a lurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage onto subways and shuttles to get to a big city airport, (30) knows that transit on this continent tends to be underfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Given the opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in a car almost always gets you to your destination more quickly. (35) It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, public transport can be faster, more comfortable, and cheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai, German-made magnetic levitation trains skim over elevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking people (40) to the airport at a third of the speed of sound. In provincial French towns, electric-powered streetcars run silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrow streets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones. From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speed (45) trains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metro networks, allowing commuters to work on laptops as they prepare for same-day meetings in once distant capital cities. In Latin America, China, and India, working people board fast-loading buses that move (50) like subway trains along dedicated busways, leaving the sedans and SUVs of the rich mired in dawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities have transformed their streets into cycle-path freeways, making giant strides in public health and safety and (55) the sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in the process turning the workaday bicycle into a viable form of mass transit. If you credit the demographers, this transit trend has legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthood (60) around the turn of the century and now outnumber baby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, and are far more willing than their parents to ride buses and subways. Part of the reason is their ease with iPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: you (65) can get some serious texting done when you’re not driving, and earbuds offer effective insulation from all but the most extreme commuting annoyances. Even though there are more teenagers in the country than ever, only ten million have a driver’s license (70) (versus twelve million a generation ago). Baby boomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaver suburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent is favoring older cities and compact towns where they have the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors, (75) too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, there will be 64 million Americans over the age of sixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especially those near light-rail or subway stations, are (80) commanding enormous price premiums over suburban homes. The experience of European and Asian cities shows that if you make buses, subways, and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, a surprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt to (85) ride rather than drive. Q. The central idea of the fourth paragraph (lines 35-57) is that

European countries excel at public transportation.

some public transportation systems are superior to travel by private automobile.

Americans should mimic foreign public transportation systems when possible.

much international public transportation is engineered for passengers to work while on board.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from Taras Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012 by Taras Grescoe. Though there are 600 million cars on the planet, and counting, there are also seven billion people, which means that for the vast majority of us getting around involves taking buses, ferryboats, commuter (5) trains, streetcars, and subways. In other words, traveling to work, school, or the market means being a straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile. (10) Half the population of New York, Toronto, and London do not own cars. Public transport is how most of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’s most populous continents, travel. Every day, subway systems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-four (15) times the number carried by all the world’s airplanes, and the global public transport market is now valued at $428 billion annually. A century and a half after the invention of the internal combustion engine, private car ownership is still an anomaly. (20) And yet public transportation, in many minds, is the opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort for those with one too many impaired driving charges, too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to get behind the wheel of a car. In much of North (25) America, they are right: taking transit is a depressing experience. Anybody who has waited far too long on a street corner for the privilege of boarding a lurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage onto subways and shuttles to get to a big city airport, (30) knows that transit on this continent tends to be underfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Given the opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in a car almost always gets you to your destination more quickly. (35) It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, public transport can be faster, more comfortable, and cheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai, German-made magnetic levitation trains skim over elevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking people (40) to the airport at a third of the speed of sound. In provincial French towns, electric-powered streetcars run silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrow streets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones. From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speed (45) trains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metro networks, allowing commuters to work on laptops as they prepare for same-day meetings in once distant capital cities. In Latin America, China, and India, working people board fast-loading buses that move (50) like subway trains along dedicated busways, leaving the sedans and SUVs of the rich mired in dawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities have transformed their streets into cycle-path freeways, making giant strides in public health and safety and (55) the sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in the process turning the workaday bicycle into a viable form of mass transit. If you credit the demographers, this transit trend has legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthood (60) around the turn of the century and now outnumber baby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, and are far more willing than their parents to ride buses and subways. Part of the reason is their ease with iPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: you (65) can get some serious texting done when you’re not driving, and earbuds offer effective insulation from all but the most extreme commuting annoyances. Even though there are more teenagers in the country than ever, only ten million have a driver’s license (70) (versus twelve million a generation ago). Baby boomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaver suburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent is favoring older cities and compact towns where they have the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors, (75) too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, there will be 64 million Americans over the age of sixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especially those near light-rail or subway stations, are (80) commanding enormous price premiums over suburban homes. The experience of European and Asian cities shows that if you make buses, subways, and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, a surprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt to (85) ride rather than drive. Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 35-37 (“Done... automobile”)

Lines 37-40 (“In... sound”)

Lines 44-48 (“From... cities”)

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from Taras Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012 by Taras Grescoe. Though there are 600 million cars on the planet, and counting, there are also seven billion people, which means that for the vast majority of us getting around involves taking buses, ferryboats, commuter (5) trains, streetcars, and subways. In other words, traveling to work, school, or the market means being a straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile. (10) Half the population of New York, Toronto, and London do not own cars. Public transport is how most of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’s most populous continents, travel. Every day, subway systems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-four (15) times the number carried by all the world’s airplanes, and the global public transport market is now valued at $428 billion annually. A century and a half after the invention of the internal combustion engine, private car ownership is still an anomaly. (20) And yet public transportation, in many minds, is the opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort for those with one too many impaired driving charges, too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to get behind the wheel of a car. In much of North (25) America, they are right: taking transit is a depressing experience. Anybody who has waited far too long on a street corner for the privilege of boarding a lurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage onto subways and shuttles to get to a big city airport, (30) knows that transit on this continent tends to be underfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Given the opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in a car almost always gets you to your destination more quickly. (35) It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, public transport can be faster, more comfortable, and cheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai, German-made magnetic levitation trains skim over elevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking people (40) to the airport at a third of the speed of sound. In provincial French towns, electric-powered streetcars run silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrow streets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones. From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speed (45) trains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metro networks, allowing commuters to work on laptops as they prepare for same-day meetings in once distant capital cities. In Latin America, China, and India, working people board fast-loading buses that move (50) like subway trains along dedicated busways, leaving the sedans and SUVs of the rich mired in dawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities have transformed their streets into cycle-path freeways, making giant strides in public health and safety and (55) the sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in the process turning the workaday bicycle into a viable form of mass transit. If you credit the demographers, this transit trend has legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthood (60) around the turn of the century and now outnumber baby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, and are far more willing than their parents to ride buses and subways. Part of the reason is their ease with iPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: you (65) can get some serious texting done when you’re not driving, and earbuds offer effective insulation from all but the most extreme commuting annoyances. Even though there are more teenagers in the country than ever, only ten million have a driver’s license (70) (versus twelve million a generation ago). Baby boomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaver suburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent is favoring older cities and compact towns where they have the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors, (75) too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, there will be 64 million Americans over the age of sixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especially those near light-rail or subway stations, are (80) commanding enormous price premiums over suburban homes. The experience of European and Asian cities shows that if you make buses, subways, and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, a surprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt to (85) ride rather than drive. Q. Which choice best supports the conclusion that public transportation is compatible with the use of personal electronic devices?

Lines 59-63 (“The... subways”)

Lines 63-67 (“Part... annoyances”)

Lines 68-70 (“Even... ago”)

Lines 77-81 (“Already... homes”)

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from Taras Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012 by Taras Grescoe. Though there are 600 million cars on the planet, and counting, there are also seven billion people, which means that for the vast majority of us getting around involves taking buses, ferryboats, commuter (5) trains, streetcars, and subways. In other words, traveling to work, school, or the market means being a straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile. (10) Half the population of New York, Toronto, and London do not own cars. Public transport is how most of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’s most populous continents, travel. Every day, subway systems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-four (15) times the number carried by all the world’s airplanes, and the global public transport market is now valued at $428 billion annually. A century and a half after the invention of the internal combustion engine, private car ownership is still an anomaly. (20) And yet public transportation, in many minds, is the opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort for those with one too many impaired driving charges, too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to get behind the wheel of a car. In much of North (25) America, they are right: taking transit is a depressing experience. Anybody who has waited far too long on a street corner for the privilege of boarding a lurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage onto subways and shuttles to get to a big city airport, (30) knows that transit on this continent tends to be underfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Given the opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in a car almost always gets you to your destination more quickly. (35) It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, public transport can be faster, more comfortable, and cheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai, German-made magnetic levitation trains skim over elevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking people (40) to the airport at a third of the speed of sound. In provincial French towns, electric-powered streetcars run silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrow streets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones. From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speed (45) trains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metro networks, allowing commuters to work on laptops as they prepare for same-day meetings in once distant capital cities. In Latin America, China, and India, working people board fast-loading buses that move (50) like subway trains along dedicated busways, leaving the sedans and SUVs of the rich mired in dawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities have transformed their streets into cycle-path freeways, making giant strides in public health and safety and (55) the sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in the process turning the workaday bicycle into a viable form of mass transit. If you credit the demographers, this transit trend has legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthood (60) around the turn of the century and now outnumber baby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, and are far more willing than their parents to ride buses and subways. Part of the reason is their ease with iPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: you (65) can get some serious texting done when you’re not driving, and earbuds offer effective insulation from all but the most extreme commuting annoyances. Even though there are more teenagers in the country than ever, only ten million have a driver’s license (70) (versus twelve million a generation ago). Baby boomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaver suburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent is favoring older cities and compact towns where they have the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors, (75) too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, there will be 64 million Americans over the age of sixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especially those near light-rail or subway stations, are (80) commanding enormous price premiums over suburban homes. The experience of European and Asian cities shows that if you make buses, subways, and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, a surprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt to (85) ride rather than drive. Q. Which choice is supported by the data in the first figure?

The number of students using public transportation is greater than the number of retirees using public transportation.

The number of employed people using public transportation and the number of unemployed people using public transportation is roughly the same.

People employed outside the home are less likely to use public transportation than are homemakers.

Unemployed people use public transportation less often than do people employed outside the home.

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material. This passage is adapted from Taras Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012 by Taras Grescoe. Though there are 600 million cars on the planet, and counting, there are also seven billion people, which means that for the vast majority of us getting around involves taking buses, ferryboats, commuter (5) trains, streetcars, and subways. In other words, traveling to work, school, or the market means being a straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity, relies on public transport, rather than a privately owned automobile. (10) Half the population of New York, Toronto, and London do not own cars. Public transport is how most of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’s most populous continents, travel. Every day, subway systems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-four (15) times the number carried by all the world’s airplanes, and the global public transport market is now valued at $428 billion annually. A century and a half after the invention of the internal combustion engine, private car ownership is still an anomaly. (20) And yet public transportation, in many minds, is the opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort for those with one too many impaired driving charges, too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to get behind the wheel of a car. In much of North (25) America, they are right: taking transit is a depressing experience. Anybody who has waited far too long on a street corner for the privilege of boarding a lurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage onto subways and shuttles to get to a big city airport, (30) knows that transit on this continent tends to be underfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Given the opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in a car almost always gets you to your destination more quickly. (35) It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, public transport can be faster, more comfortable, and cheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai, German-made magnetic levitation trains skim over elevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking people (40) to the airport at a third of the speed of sound. In provincial French towns, electric-powered streetcars run silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrow streets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones. From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speed (45) trains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metro networks, allowing commuters to work on laptops as they prepare for same-day meetings in once distant capital cities. In Latin America, China, and India, working people board fast-loading buses that move (50) like subway trains along dedicated busways, leaving the sedans and SUVs of the rich mired in dawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities have transformed their streets into cycle-path freeways, making giant strides in public health and safety and (55) the sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in the process turning the workaday bicycle into a viable form of mass transit. If you credit the demographers, this transit trend has legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthood (60) around the turn of the century and now outnumber baby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, and are far more willing than their parents to ride buses and subways. Part of the reason is their ease with iPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: you (65) can get some serious texting done when you’re not driving, and earbuds offer effective insulation from all but the most extreme commuting annoyances. Even though there are more teenagers in the country than ever, only ten million have a driver’s license (70) (versus twelve million a generation ago). Baby boomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaver suburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent is favoring older cities and compact towns where they have the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors, (75) too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, there will be 64 million Americans over the age of sixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especially those near light-rail or subway stations, are (80) commanding enormous price premiums over suburban homes. The experience of European and Asian cities shows that if you make buses, subways, and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, a surprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt to (85) ride rather than drive. Q. Taken together, the two figures suggest that most people who use public transportation

are employed outside the home and take public transportation to work.

are employed outside the home but take public transportation primarily in order to run errands.

use public transportation during the week but use their private cars on weekends.

use public transportation only until they are able to afford to buy a car.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. Which choice best reflects the overall sequence of events in the passage?

An experiment is proposed but provesunworkable; a less ambitious experiment isattempted, and it yields data that give rise to anew set of questions.

A new discovery leads to reconsideration of atheory; a classic study is adapted, and the resultsare summarized.

An anomaly is observed and simulatedexperimentally; the results are compared withprevious findings, and a novel hypothesis isproposed.

An unexpected finding arises during the earlyphase of a study; the study is modified inresponse to this finding, and the results areinterpreted and evaluated.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. Which statement best captures Ken Dial’s central assumption in setting up his research?

The acquisition of flight in young birds sheds light on the acquisition of flight in their evolutionary ancestors.

The tendency of certain young birds to jump erratically is a somewhat recent evolved behavior.

Young birds in a controlled research setting are less likely than birds in the wild to require perches when at rest.

Ground-dwelling and tree-climbing predecessors to birds evolved in parallel.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 1-4 (“At field... parents”)

Lines 6-11 (“So when... fly”)

Lines 16-19 (“When... measured”)

Lines 23-24 (“At first...the ground”)

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. In the second paragraph (lines 12-32), the incident involving the local rancher mainly serves to

reveal Ken Dial’s motivation for undertaking his project.

underscore certain differences between laboratory and field research.

show how an unanticipated piece of information influenced Ken Dial’s research.

introduce a key contributor to the tree-down theory.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. After Ken Dial had his “‘aha’ moment” (line 41), he

tried to train the birds to fly to their perches.

studied videos to determine why the birds no longer hopped.

observed how the birds dealt with gradually steeper inclines.

consulted with other researchers who had studied Chukar Partridges.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. The passage identifies which of the following as a factor that facilitated the baby Chukars’ traction on steep ramps?

The speed with which they climbed

The position of their flapping wings

The alternation of wing and foot movement

Their continual hopping motions

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. What can reasonably be inferred about gliding animals from the passage?

Their young tend to hop along beside their parents instead of flying beside them.

Their method of locomotion is similar to that of ground birds.

They use the ground for feeding more often than for perching.

They do not use a flapping stroke to aid in climbing slopes.

Question based on the following passage. This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers. ©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated how the ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. The ground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed ground dwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping their upper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were tree climbers that leapt and glided among branches. At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw a pattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous, and other ground birds ran along behind their parents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said, (5) describing how they would flap their half-formed wings and take short hops into the air. So when a group of graduate students challenged him to come up with new data on the age-old ground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a project (10) to see what clues might lie in how baby game birds learned to fly. Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as a model species, but he might not have made his discovery without a key piece of advice from the local (15) rancher in Montana who was supplying him with birds. When the cowboy stopped by to see how things were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidy laboratory setup and explained how the birds’ first hops and flights would be measured. The rancher (20) was incredulous. “He took one look and said, in pretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doing on the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Give them something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemed unnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? But (25) as he thought about it Ken realized that all the species he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest on ledges, low branches, or other elevated perches where they were safe from predators. They really only used the ground for feeding and traveling. So he brought (30) in some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on and then left his son in charge of feeding and data collection while he went away on a short work trip. Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dial was visibly upset when his father got back. “I asked (35) him how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said, Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flying up to their perches, the baby Chukars were using their legs. Time and again Terry had watched them run right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all the (40) while. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and that was the “aha” moment. “The birds were using their wings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and that single observation opened up a world of possibilities. Working together with Terry (who has since gone (45) on to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with a series of ingenious experiments, filming the birds as they raced up textured ramps tilted at increasing angles. As the incline increased, the partridges began to flap, but they angled their wings differently from (50) birds in flight. They aimed their flapping down and backward, using the force not for lift but to keep their feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s like the spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained, which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing, (55) spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push the cars downward as they speed along, increasing traction and handling. The birds were doing the very same thing with their wings to help them scramble up otherwise impossible slopes. (60) Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assisted incline running, and went on to document it in a wide range of species. It not only allowed young birds to climb vertical surfaces within the first few weeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficient (65) alternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments, adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeper than 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall and onto the ceiling. In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes on (70) surprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop, the Dials came up with a viable origin for the flapping flight stroke of birds (something gliding animals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of the tree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function for (75) half-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to the ground-up hypothesis). Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Lines 4-6 (“They jumped... air”)

Lines 28-29 (“They really... traveling”)

Lines 57-59 (“The birds... slopes”)

Lines 72-74 (“something... theory”)

OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 8 Free MCQ Practice Test with Solutions

EduRev

All Courses

Open App

Important Questions for OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 8

Find all the important questions for OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 8 at EduRev.Get fully prepared for OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 8 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 - 8 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 - 8 resources.

OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 8 MCQs with Answers

Prepare for the OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 8 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 - 8

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 - 8 with ease. Join thousands of successful students who have benefited from our trusted online resources.

Education Revolution