OneTime: Digital SAT Mock Test - 9 - SAT MCQ

Question based on the following passage.
This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.
The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road
near Devon Avenue. It was long and narrow, with
tables for two along the walls and tables for four
down the middle. The decoration was art moderne,
(5) except for the series of murals depicting the four
seasons, and the sick ferns in the front window.
Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash
register, and ordered his dinner. The history book,
which he propped against the catsup and the glass
(10) sugar bowl, had been used by others before him.
Blank pages front and back were filled in with maps,
drawings, dates, comic cartoons, and organs of the
body; also with names and messages no longer clear
and never absolutely legible. On nearly every other
(15) page there was some marginal notation, either in ink
or in very hard pencil. And unless someone had
upset a glass of water, the marks on page 177 were
from tears.
While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed
(20) on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and
the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and
again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he
chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that
he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of
(25) Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in
November of the same year, and all the powers
engaged in the war on either side sent
plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and
important assembly ever convoked to discuss and
(30) determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of
Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria,
Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in
person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the
Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and
(35) began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers
of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma,
thought he was through eating and tried to take his
plate away. He stopped her. Prince Metternich (his
right thumb) presided over the Congress, and
(40) Prince Talleyrand (the index finger) represented
France.
A party of four, two men and two women, came
into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took
possession of the center table nearest Lymie.
(45) The women had shingled hair and short tight skirts
which exposed the underside of their knees when
they sat down. One of the women had the face of a
young boy but disguised by one trick or another
(rouge, lipstick, powder, wet bangs plastered against
(50) the high forehead, and a pair of long pendent
earrings) to look like a woman of thirty-five, which
as a matter of fact she was. The men were older. They
laughed more than there seemed any occasion for,
while they were deciding between soup and shrimp
(55) cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was
the women’s voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch
of the women’s voices which caused Lymie to skim
over two whole pages without knowing what was on
them. Fortunately he realized this and went back.
(60) Otherwise he might never have known about the
secret treaty concluded between England, France,
and Austria, when the pretensions of Prussia and
Russia, acting in concert, seemed to threaten a
renewal of the attack. The results of the Congress
(65) were stated clearly at the bottom of page 67 and at
the top of page 68, but before Lymie got halfway
through them, a coat that he recognized as his
father’s was hung on the hook next to his chair.
Lymie closed the book and said, “I didn’t think you
(70) were coming.”
Time is probably no more unkind to sporting
characters than it is to other people, but physical
decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more
noticeable. Mr. Peters’ hair was turning gray and his
(75) scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight
also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he
used to. His color was poor, and the flower had
disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an
American Legion button.
(80) Apparently he himself was not aware that there
had been any change. He straightened his tie
self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu,
he gestured with it so that the two women at the next
table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth
(85) finger of his right hand. Both of these things, and
also the fact that his hands showed signs of the
manicurist, one can blame on the young man who
had his picture taken with a derby hat on the back of
his head, and also sitting with a girl in the curve of
(90) the moon. The young man had never for one second
deserted Mr. Peters. He was always there, tugging at
Mr. Peters’ elbow, making him do things that were
not becoming in a man of forty-five.

Q. Lymie’s primary impression of the “party of four” (line 42) is that they

Question based on the following passage.
This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.
The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road
near Devon Avenue. It was long and narrow, with
tables for two along the walls and tables for four
down the middle. The decoration was art moderne,
(5) except for the series of murals depicting the four
seasons, and the sick ferns in the front window.
Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash
register, and ordered his dinner. The history book,
which he propped against the catsup and the glass
(10) sugar bowl, had been used by others before him.
Blank pages front and back were filled in with maps,
drawings, dates, comic cartoons, and organs of the
body; also with names and messages no longer clear
and never absolutely legible. On nearly every other
(15) page there was some marginal notation, either in ink
or in very hard pencil. And unless someone had
upset a glass of water, the marks on page 177 were
from tears.
While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed
(20) on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and
the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and
again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he
chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that
he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of
(25) Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in
November of the same year, and all the powers
engaged in the war on either side sent
plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and
important assembly ever convoked to discuss and
(30) determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of
Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria,
Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in
person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the
Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and
(35) began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers
of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma,
thought he was through eating and tried to take his
plate away. He stopped her. Prince Metternich (his
right thumb) presided over the Congress, and
(40) Prince Talleyrand (the index finger) represented
France.
A party of four, two men and two women, came
into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took
possession of the center table nearest Lymie.
(45) The women had shingled hair and short tight skirts
which exposed the underside of their knees when
they sat down. One of the women had the face of a
young boy but disguised by one trick or another
(rouge, lipstick, powder, wet bangs plastered against
(50) the high forehead, and a pair of long pendent
earrings) to look like a woman of thirty-five, which
as a matter of fact she was. The men were older. They
laughed more than there seemed any occasion for,
while they were deciding between soup and shrimp
(55) cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was
the women’s voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch
of the women’s voices which caused Lymie to skim
over two whole pages without knowing what was on
them. Fortunately he realized this and went back.
(60) Otherwise he might never have known about the
secret treaty concluded between England, France,
and Austria, when the pretensions of Prussia and
Russia, acting in concert, seemed to threaten a
renewal of the attack. The results of the Congress
(65) were stated clearly at the bottom of page 67 and at
the top of page 68, but before Lymie got halfway
through them, a coat that he recognized as his
father’s was hung on the hook next to his chair.
Lymie closed the book and said, “I didn’t think you
(70) were coming.”
Time is probably no more unkind to sporting
characters than it is to other people, but physical
decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more
noticeable. Mr. Peters’ hair was turning gray and his
(75) scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight
also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he
used to. His color was poor, and the flower had
disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an
American Legion button.
(80) Apparently he himself was not aware that there
had been any change. He straightened his tie
self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu,
he gestured with it so that the two women at the next
table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth
(85) finger of his right hand. Both of these things, and
also the fact that his hands showed signs of the
manicurist, one can blame on the young man who
had his picture taken with a derby hat on the back of
his head, and also sitting with a girl in the curve of
(90) the moon. The young man had never for one second
deserted Mr. Peters. He was always there, tugging at
Mr. Peters’ elbow, making him do things that were
not becoming in a man of forty-five.

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

Question based on the following passage.
This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.
The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road
near Devon Avenue. It was long and narrow, with
tables for two along the walls and tables for four
down the middle. The decoration was art moderne,
(5) except for the series of murals depicting the four
seasons, and the sick ferns in the front window.
Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash
register, and ordered his dinner. The history book,
which he propped against the catsup and the glass
(10) sugar bowl, had been used by others before him.
Blank pages front and back were filled in with maps,
drawings, dates, comic cartoons, and organs of the
body; also with names and messages no longer clear
and never absolutely legible. On nearly every other
(15) page there was some marginal notation, either in ink
or in very hard pencil. And unless someone had
upset a glass of water, the marks on page 177 were
from tears.
While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed
(20) on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and
the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and
again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he
chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that
he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of
(25) Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in
November of the same year, and all the powers
engaged in the war on either side sent
plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and
important assembly ever convoked to discuss and
(30) determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of
Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria,
Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in
person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the
Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and
(35) began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers
of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma,
thought he was through eating and tried to take his
plate away. He stopped her. Prince Metternich (his
right thumb) presided over the Congress, and
(40) Prince Talleyrand (the index finger) represented
France.
A party of four, two men and two women, came
into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took
possession of the center table nearest Lymie.
(45) The women had shingled hair and short tight skirts
which exposed the underside of their knees when
they sat down. One of the women had the face of a
young boy but disguised by one trick or another
(rouge, lipstick, powder, wet bangs plastered against
(50) the high forehead, and a pair of long pendent
earrings) to look like a woman of thirty-five, which
as a matter of fact she was. The men were older. They
laughed more than there seemed any occasion for,
while they were deciding between soup and shrimp
(55) cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was
the women’s voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch
of the women’s voices which caused Lymie to skim
over two whole pages without knowing what was on
them. Fortunately he realized this and went back.
(60) Otherwise he might never have known about the
secret treaty concluded between England, France,
and Austria, when the pretensions of Prussia and
Russia, acting in concert, seemed to threaten a
renewal of the attack. The results of the Congress
(65) were stated clearly at the bottom of page 67 and at
the top of page 68, but before Lymie got halfway
through them, a coat that he recognized as his
father’s was hung on the hook next to his chair.
Lymie closed the book and said, “I didn’t think you
(70) were coming.”
Time is probably no more unkind to sporting
characters than it is to other people, but physical
decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more
noticeable. Mr. Peters’ hair was turning gray and his
(75) scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight
also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he
used to. His color was poor, and the flower had
disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an
American Legion button.
(80) Apparently he himself was not aware that there
had been any change. He straightened his tie
self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu,
he gestured with it so that the two women at the next
table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth
(85) finger of his right hand. Both of these things, and
also the fact that his hands showed signs of the
manicurist, one can blame on the young man who
had his picture taken with a derby hat on the back of
his head, and also sitting with a girl in the curve of
(90) the moon. The young man had never for one second
deserted Mr. Peters. He was always there, tugging at
Mr. Peters’ elbow, making him do things that were
not becoming in a man of forty-five.

Q. The narrator indicates that Lymie finally closes the history book because

Question based on the following passage.
This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.
The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road
near Devon Avenue. It was long and narrow, with
tables for two along the walls and tables for four
down the middle. The decoration was art moderne,
(5) except for the series of murals depicting the four
seasons, and the sick ferns in the front window.
Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash
register, and ordered his dinner. The history book,
which he propped against the catsup and the glass
(10) sugar bowl, had been used by others before him.
Blank pages front and back were filled in with maps,
drawings, dates, comic cartoons, and organs of the
body; also with names and messages no longer clear
and never absolutely legible. On nearly every other
(15) page there was some marginal notation, either in ink
or in very hard pencil. And unless someone had
upset a glass of water, the marks on page 177 were
from tears.
While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed
(20) on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and
the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and
again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he
chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that
he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of
(25) Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in
November of the same year, and all the powers
engaged in the war on either side sent
plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and
important assembly ever convoked to discuss and
(30) determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of
Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria,
Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in
person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the
Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and
(35) began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers
of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma,
thought he was through eating and tried to take his
plate away. He stopped her. Prince Metternich (his
right thumb) presided over the Congress, and
(40) Prince Talleyrand (the index finger) represented
France.
A party of four, two men and two women, came
into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took
possession of the center table nearest Lymie.
(45) The women had shingled hair and short tight skirts
which exposed the underside of their knees when
they sat down. One of the women had the face of a
young boy but disguised by one trick or another
(rouge, lipstick, powder, wet bangs plastered against
(50) the high forehead, and a pair of long pendent
earrings) to look like a woman of thirty-five, which
as a matter of fact she was. The men were older. They
laughed more than there seemed any occasion for,
while they were deciding between soup and shrimp
(55) cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was
the women’s voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch
of the women’s voices which caused Lymie to skim
over two whole pages without knowing what was on
them. Fortunately he realized this and went back.
(60) Otherwise he might never have known about the
secret treaty concluded between England, France,
and Austria, when the pretensions of Prussia and
Russia, acting in concert, seemed to threaten a
renewal of the attack. The results of the Congress
(65) were stated clearly at the bottom of page 67 and at
the top of page 68, but before Lymie got halfway
through them, a coat that he recognized as his
father’s was hung on the hook next to his chair.
Lymie closed the book and said, “I didn’t think you
(70) were coming.”
Time is probably no more unkind to sporting
characters than it is to other people, but physical
decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more
noticeable. Mr. Peters’ hair was turning gray and his
(75) scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight
also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he
used to. His color was poor, and the flower had
disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an
American Legion button.
(80) Apparently he himself was not aware that there
had been any change. He straightened his tie
self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu,
he gestured with it so that the two women at the next
table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth
(85) finger of his right hand. Both of these things, and
also the fact that his hands showed signs of the
manicurist, one can blame on the young man who
had his picture taken with a derby hat on the back of
his head, and also sitting with a girl in the curve of
(90) the moon. The young man had never for one second
deserted Mr. Peters. He was always there, tugging at
Mr. Peters’ elbow, making him do things that were
not becoming in a man of forty-five.

Q. The primary impression created by the narrator’s description of Mr. Peters in lines 74-79 is that he is

Question based on the following passage.
This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.
The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road
near Devon Avenue. It was long and narrow, with
tables for two along the walls and tables for four
down the middle. The decoration was art moderne,
(5) except for the series of murals depicting the four
seasons, and the sick ferns in the front window.
Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash
register, and ordered his dinner. The history book,
which he propped against the catsup and the glass
(10) sugar bowl, had been used by others before him.
Blank pages front and back were filled in with maps,
drawings, dates, comic cartoons, and organs of the
body; also with names and messages no longer clear
and never absolutely legible. On nearly every other
(15) page there was some marginal notation, either in ink
or in very hard pencil. And unless someone had
upset a glass of water, the marks on page 177 were
from tears.
While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed
(20) on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and
the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and
again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he
chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that
he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of
(25) Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in
November of the same year, and all the powers
engaged in the war on either side sent
plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and
important assembly ever convoked to discuss and
(30) determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of
Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria,
Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in
person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the
Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and
(35) began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers
of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma,
thought he was through eating and tried to take his
plate away. He stopped her. Prince Metternich (his
right thumb) presided over the Congress, and
(40) Prince Talleyrand (the index finger) represented
France.
A party of four, two men and two women, came
into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took
possession of the center table nearest Lymie.
(45) The women had shingled hair and short tight skirts
which exposed the underside of their knees when
they sat down. One of the women had the face of a
young boy but disguised by one trick or another
(rouge, lipstick, powder, wet bangs plastered against
(50) the high forehead, and a pair of long pendent
earrings) to look like a woman of thirty-five, which
as a matter of fact she was. The men were older. They
laughed more than there seemed any occasion for,
while they were deciding between soup and shrimp
(55) cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was
the women’s voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch
of the women’s voices which caused Lymie to skim
over two whole pages without knowing what was on
them. Fortunately he realized this and went back.
(60) Otherwise he might never have known about the
secret treaty concluded between England, France,
and Austria, when the pretensions of Prussia and
Russia, acting in concert, seemed to threaten a
renewal of the attack. The results of the Congress
(65) were stated clearly at the bottom of page 67 and at
the top of page 68, but before Lymie got halfway
through them, a coat that he recognized as his
father’s was hung on the hook next to his chair.
Lymie closed the book and said, “I didn’t think you
(70) were coming.”
Time is probably no more unkind to sporting
characters than it is to other people, but physical
decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more
noticeable. Mr. Peters’ hair was turning gray and his
(75) scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight
also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he
used to. His color was poor, and the flower had
disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an
American Legion button.
(80) Apparently he himself was not aware that there
had been any change. He straightened his tie
self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu,
he gestured with it so that the two women at the next
table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth
(85) finger of his right hand. Both of these things, and
also the fact that his hands showed signs of the
manicurist, one can blame on the young man who
had his picture taken with a derby hat on the back of
his head, and also sitting with a girl in the curve of
(90) the moon. The young man had never for one second
deserted Mr. Peters. He was always there, tugging at
Mr. Peters’ elbow, making him do things that were
not becoming in a man of forty-five.

Q. The main idea of the last paragraph is that Mr. Peters

Question based on the following passage.
This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.
The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road
near Devon Avenue. It was long and narrow, with
tables for two along the walls and tables for four
down the middle. The decoration was art moderne,
(5) except for the series of murals depicting the four
seasons, and the sick ferns in the front window.
Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash
register, and ordered his dinner. The history book,
which he propped against the catsup and the glass
(10) sugar bowl, had been used by others before him.
Blank pages front and back were filled in with maps,
drawings, dates, comic cartoons, and organs of the
body; also with names and messages no longer clear
and never absolutely legible. On nearly every other
(15) page there was some marginal notation, either in ink
or in very hard pencil. And unless someone had
upset a glass of water, the marks on page 177 were
from tears.
While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed
(20) on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and
the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and
again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he
chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that
he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of
(25) Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in
November of the same year, and all the powers
engaged in the war on either side sent
plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and
important assembly ever convoked to discuss and
(30) determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of
Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria,
Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in
person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the
Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and
(35) began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers
of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma,
thought he was through eating and tried to take his
plate away. He stopped her. Prince Metternich (his
right thumb) presided over the Congress, and
(40) Prince Talleyrand (the index finger) represented
France.
A party of four, two men and two women, came
into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took
possession of the center table nearest Lymie.
(45) The women had shingled hair and short tight skirts
which exposed the underside of their knees when
they sat down. One of the women had the face of a
young boy but disguised by one trick or another
(rouge, lipstick, powder, wet bangs plastered against
(50) the high forehead, and a pair of long pendent
earrings) to look like a woman of thirty-five, which
as a matter of fact she was. The men were older. They
laughed more than there seemed any occasion for,
while they were deciding between soup and shrimp
(55) cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was
the women’s voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch
of the women’s voices which caused Lymie to skim
over two whole pages without knowing what was on
them. Fortunately he realized this and went back.
(60) Otherwise he might never have known about the
secret treaty concluded between England, France,
and Austria, when the pretensions of Prussia and
Russia, acting in concert, seemed to threaten a
renewal of the attack. The results of the Congress
(65) were stated clearly at the bottom of page 67 and at
the top of page 68, but before Lymie got halfway
through them, a coat that he recognized as his
father’s was hung on the hook next to his chair.
Lymie closed the book and said, “I didn’t think you
(70) were coming.”
Time is probably no more unkind to sporting
characters than it is to other people, but physical
decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more
noticeable. Mr. Peters’ hair was turning gray and his
(75) scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight
also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he
used to. His color was poor, and the flower had
disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an
American Legion button.
(80) Apparently he himself was not aware that there
had been any change. He straightened his tie
self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu,
he gestured with it so that the two women at the next
table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth
(85) finger of his right hand. Both of these things, and
also the fact that his hands showed signs of the
manicurist, one can blame on the young man who
had his picture taken with a derby hat on the back of
his head, and also sitting with a girl in the curve of
(90) the moon. The young man had never for one second
deserted Mr. Peters. He was always there, tugging at
Mr. Peters’ elbow, making him do things that were
not becoming in a man of forty-five.

Q. Which choice best supports the conclusion that Mr. Peters wants to attract attention?

Question based on the following passage.
This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.
The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road
near Devon Avenue. It was long and narrow, with
tables for two along the walls and tables for four
down the middle. The decoration was art moderne,
(5) except for the series of murals depicting the four
seasons, and the sick ferns in the front window.
Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash
register, and ordered his dinner. The history book,
which he propped against the catsup and the glass
(10) sugar bowl, had been used by others before him.
Blank pages front and back were filled in with maps,
drawings, dates, comic cartoons, and organs of the
body; also with names and messages no longer clear
and never absolutely legible. On nearly every other
(15) page there was some marginal notation, either in ink
or in very hard pencil. And unless someone had
upset a glass of water, the marks on page 177 were
from tears.
While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed
(20) on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and
the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and
again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he
chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that
he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of
(25) Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in
November of the same year, and all the powers
engaged in the war on either side sent
plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and
important assembly ever convoked to discuss and
(30) determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of
Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria,
Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in
person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the
Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and
(35) began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers
of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma,
thought he was through eating and tried to take his
plate away. He stopped her. Prince Metternich (his
right thumb) presided over the Congress, and
(40) Prince Talleyrand (the index finger) represented
France.
A party of four, two men and two women, came
into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took
possession of the center table nearest Lymie.
(45) The women had shingled hair and short tight skirts
which exposed the underside of their knees when
they sat down. One of the women had the face of a
young boy but disguised by one trick or another
(rouge, lipstick, powder, wet bangs plastered against
(50) the high forehead, and a pair of long pendent
earrings) to look like a woman of thirty-five, which
as a matter of fact she was. The men were older. They
laughed more than there seemed any occasion for,
while they were deciding between soup and shrimp
(55) cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was
the women’s voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch
of the women’s voices which caused Lymie to skim
over two whole pages without knowing what was on
them. Fortunately he realized this and went back.
(60) Otherwise he might never have known about the
secret treaty concluded between England, France,
and Austria, when the pretensions of Prussia and
Russia, acting in concert, seemed to threaten a
renewal of the attack. The results of the Congress
(65) were stated clearly at the bottom of page 67 and at
the top of page 68, but before Lymie got halfway
through them, a coat that he recognized as his
father’s was hung on the hook next to his chair.
Lymie closed the book and said, “I didn’t think you
(70) were coming.”
Time is probably no more unkind to sporting
characters than it is to other people, but physical
decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more
noticeable. Mr. Peters’ hair was turning gray and his
(75) scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight
also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he
used to. His color was poor, and the flower had
disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an
American Legion button.
(80) Apparently he himself was not aware that there
had been any change. He straightened his tie
self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu,
he gestured with it so that the two women at the next
table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth
(85) finger of his right hand. Both of these things, and
also the fact that his hands showed signs of the
manicurist, one can blame on the young man who
had his picture taken with a derby hat on the back of
his head, and also sitting with a girl in the curve of
(90) the moon. The young man had never for one second
deserted Mr. Peters. He was always there, tugging at
Mr. Peters’ elbow, making him do things that were
not becoming in a man of forty-five.

Q. As used in line 93, “becoming” most nearly means

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. In Passage 1, Beecher makes which point about the status of women relative to that of men?

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

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

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. In Passage 1, Beecher implies that women’s effect on public life is largely

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. As used in line 2, “station” most nearly means

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. As used in line 12, “peculiar” most nearly means

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. What is Grimké’s central claim in Passage 2?

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. In Passage 2, Grimké makes which point about human rights?

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

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

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. Which choice best states the relationship between the two passages?

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. Based on the passages, both authors would agree with which of the following claims?

Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Catharine Beecher, Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism. Originally published in 1837. Passage 2 is adapted from Angelina E. Grimke, Letters to Catharine Beecher. Originally published in 1838. Grimke encouraged Southern women to oppose slavery publicly. Passage 1 is Beecher's response to Grimke's views.
Passage 2 is Grimke's response to Beecher.
Passage 1
Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior,
and to the other the subordinate station, and this
without any reference to the character or conduct of
either. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is
(5) for the interest of females, in all respects to conform
to the duties of this relation.... But while woman
holds a subordinate relation in society to the other
sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties
or her influence should be any the less important, or
(10) all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode of
gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogether different and peculiar....
A man may act on society by the collision of
intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures
(15) by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest;
he may coerce by the combination of public
sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he
does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere. But all
the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to
(20) woman, are those only which appeal to the kindly,
generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win everything by peace and love;
by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her
(25) wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But
this is to be all accomplished in the domestic and
social circle. There let every woman become so
cultivated and refined in intellect, that her taste and
judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling
(30) and action; that her motives will be reverenced;—so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and
competition will be banished;—so “gentle and easy to
be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the
(35) sons, will find an influence thrown around them,
to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly....
A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and
combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
(40) appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and
domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws
a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for
herself or others—whatever binds her in a party
conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert
(45) coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are
correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of
arraying females in any Abolition movement.
Passage 2
The investigation of the rights of the slave has led
(50) me to a better understanding of my own. I have
found the Anti-Slavery cause to be the high school of
morals in our land—the school in which human
rights are more fully investigated, and better
understood and taught, than in any other. Here a
(55) great fundamental principle is uplifted and
illuminated, and from this central light, rays
innumerable stream all around.
Human beings have rights, because they are moral
beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral
(60) nature; and as all men have the same moral nature,
they have essentially the same rights. These rights
may be wrested from the slave, but they cannot be
alienated: his title to himself is as perfect now, as is
that of Lyman Beecher:^* it is stamped on his moral
(65) being, and is, like it, imperishable. Now if rights are
founded in the nature of our moral being, then the
mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher
rights and responsibilities, than to woman. To
suppose that it does, would be to deny the
(70) self-evident truth, that the “physical constitution is
the mere instrument of the moral nature.” To
suppose that it does, would be to break up utterly the
relations, of the two natures, and to reverse their
functions, exalting the animal nature into a monarch,
(75) and humbling the moral into a slave; making the
former a proprietor, and the latter its property.
When human beings are regarded as moral
beings, sex, instead of being enthroned upon the
summit, administering upon rights and
(80) responsibilities, sinks into insignificance and
nothingness. My doctrine then is, that whatever it is
morally right for man to do, it is morally right for
woman to do. Our duties originate, not from
difference of sex, but from the diversity of our
(85) relations in life, the various gifts and talents
committed to our care, and the different eras in
which we live.
* Lyman Beecher was a famous minister and the father of Catharine Beecher.

Q. Beecher would most likely have reacted to lines 65-68 (“Now... woman”) of Passage 2 with

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

Q. As used in line 14, “simple” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

Q. According to the passage, a significant attribute of conventional agriculture is its ability to

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

Q. Which choice best reflects the perspective of the “environmentalists” (line 27) on conventional agriculture?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

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

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

Q. Which statement best expresses a relationship between organic farming and conventional farming that is presented in the passage?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

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

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

Q. According to Foley, an “ideal global agriculture system” (line 80)

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

Q. In line 88, “sheer” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.
When it comes to energy, everyone loves
efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals
that both sides of the political divide can agree on,
even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get
(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of
our given resources, which is good for the economy
and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In
an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only
sustainable way to live is to get more out of less.
(10) Every environmentalist would agree.
But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.
Conventional industrial agriculture has become
incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.
(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,
each American farmer feeds over 155 people
worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and
more crop per square foot of cultivated land—
over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for
(20) example—which can mean less territory needs to
be converted from wilderness to farmland.
And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild
habitats along the way—anything that could help us
(25) produce more food on less land would seem to be
good for the environment.
Of course, that’s not how most environmentalists
regard their arugula [a leafy green]. They have
embraced organic food as better for the planet—and
(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced by
agricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdain
the enormous amounts of energy needed and waste
created by conventional farming, while organic
practices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical
(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.
Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7
billion—and people are making those purchases for
their consciences as much as their taste buds.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math
(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming
yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional
agriculture. More land is therefore needed to
produce fewer crops—and that means organic
farming may not be as good for the planet as
(45) we think.
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill
University in Montreal and the University of
Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies
comparing conventional and organic methods across
(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to
legumes. They found that organic farming delivered
a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity
varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like
beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic
(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for
major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most
vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the
world’s calories—conventional agriculture
outperformed organics by more than 25%.
(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key
to plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use
of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each
year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant
growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.
When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really
mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of
water.
But not all the nitrogen used in conventional
(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends up
running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast
polluted dead zones. We’re already putting more
nitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand over
the long term. And conventional agriculture also
(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can
have unintended side effects.
What that means is that while conventional
agriculture is more efficient—sometimes much more
efficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs
(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, in
the views of the study’s authors, may borrow the best
from both systems, as Jonathan Foley of the
University of Minnesota explained:
The bottom line? Today’s organic farming
(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit and
vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not
just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for
delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple
crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,
(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.
Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy
different kinds of practices (especially new,
mixed approaches that take the best of organic
(95) and conventional farming systems) where they
are best suited—geographically, economically,
socially, etc.

Q. Which statement is best supported by the information provided in figure 1?