Back to Course SAT Practice Test – Section 3 0% Complete 0/0 Steps Assessment 1 of 0 SAT Practice Test – Section 3 Justice August 20, 2017 SAT Practice Test – Section 3 Time limit: 0 Assessment Summary 0 of 24 Questions completed Questions: Information You have already completed the assessment before. Hence you can not start it again. Assessment is loading… You must sign in or sign up to start the assessment. You must first complete the following: Results Assessment complete. Results are being recorded. Results 0 of 24 Questions answered correctly Your time: Time has elapsed You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0) Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0) 0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0) Average score Your score Categories SAT Practice Test 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Current Review Answered Correct Incorrect Question 1 of 24 1. Question Each sentence below has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five words or sets of words labeled A through E. Choose the word or set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Example: Hoping to _____ the dispute, negotiators proposed a compromise that they felt would be _____ to both labor and management. (A) enforce . . useful (B) end . . divisive (C) overcome . . unattractive (D) extend . . satisfactory (E) resolve . . acceptable Answer: E 1. Many private universities depend heavily on _______, the wealthy individuals who support them with gifts and bequests. A. instructors Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. administrators Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. monitors Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. accountants Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. benefactors Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 2 of 24 2. Question Each sentence below has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five words or sets of words labeled A through E. Choose the word or set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Example: Hoping to _____ the dispute, negotiators proposed a compromise that they felt would be _____ to both labor and management. (A) enforce . . useful (B) end . . divisive (C) overcome . . unattractive (D) extend . . satisfactory (E) resolve . . acceptable Answer: E 2. One of the characters in Milton Murayama’s novel is considered _____ because he deliberately defies an oppressive hierarchical society. A. rebellious Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. impulsive Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. artistic Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. industrious Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. tyrannical Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 3 of 24 3. Question Each sentence below has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five words or sets of words labeled A through E. Choose the word or set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Example: Hoping to _____ the dispute, negotiators proposed a compromise that they felt would be _____ to both labor and management. (A) enforce . . useful (B) end . . divisive (C) overcome . . unattractive (D) extend . . satisfactory (E) resolve . . acceptable Answer: E 3. Nightjars possess a camouflage perhaps unparalleled in the bird world: by day they roost hidden in shady woods, so _____ with their surroundings that they are nearly impossible to ______. A. vexed . . dislodge Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. blended . . discern Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. harmonized . . interrupt Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. impatient . . distinguish Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. integrated . . classify Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 4 of 24 4. Question Each sentence below has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five words or sets of words labeled A through E. Choose the word or set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Example: Hoping to _____ the dispute, negotiators proposed a compromise that they felt would be _____ to both labor and management. (A) enforce . . useful (B) end . . divisive (C) overcome . . unattractive (D) extend . . satisfactory (E) resolve . . acceptable Answer: E 4. Many economists believe that since resources are scarce and since human desires cannot all be ____, a method of ____ is needed. A. indulged . . apportionment Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. verified . . distribution Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. usurped . . expropriation Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. expressed . . reparation Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. anticipated . . advertising Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 5 of 24 5. Question Each sentence below has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five words or sets of words labeled A through E. Choose the word or set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Example: Hoping to _____ the dispute, negotiators proposed a compromise that they felt would be _____ to both labor and management. (A) enforce . . useful (B) end . . divisive (C) overcome . . unattractive (D) extend . . satisfactory (E) resolve . . acceptable Answer: E 5. The range of colors that homeowners could use on the exterior of their houses was _____ by the community’s stringent rules regarding upkeep of property. A. circumscribed Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. bolstered Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. embellished Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. insinuated Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. cultivated Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 6 of 24 6. Question Read the following passages and answer the question that follows. Passage 1 I know what your e-mail in-box looks like, and it isn’t pretty: a babble of come-ons and lies from hucksters and con artists. To find your real e-mail, you must wade through the torrent of fraud and obscenity known politely as “unsolicited bulk e-mail” and colloquially as “spam.” 5 In a perverse tribute to the power of the online revolution, we are all suddenly getting the same mail: easy weight loss, get-rich-quick schemes, etc. The crush of these mes- sages is now numbered in billions per day. “It’s becoming a major systems and engineering and network problem,” 10 says one e-mail expert. “Spammers are gaining control of the Internet.” Passage 2 Many people who hate spam assume that it is protected as free speech. Not necessarily so. The United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that individuals 15 may preserve a threshold of privacy. “Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit,” wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. “We therefore categori- cally reject the argument that a vendor has a right to send 20 unwanted material into the home of another.” With regard to a seemingly similar problem, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 made it illegal in the United States to send unsolicited faxes; why not extend the act to include unsolicited bulk e-mail? 25 6. The primary purpose of Passage 1 is to A. make a comparison Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. dispute a hypothesis Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. settle a controversy Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. justify a distinction Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. highlight a concern Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 7 of 24 7. Question Read the following passages and answer the question that follows. Passage 1 I know what your e-mail in-box looks like, and it isn’t pretty: a babble of come-ons and lies from hucksters and con artists. To find your real e-mail, you must wade through the torrent of fraud and obscenity known politely as “unsolicited bulk e-mail” and colloquially as “spam.” 5 In a perverse tribute to the power of the online revolution, we are all suddenly getting the same mail: easy weight loss, get-rich-quick schemes, etc. The crush of these mes- sages is now numbered in billions per day. “It’s becoming a major systems and engineering and network problem,” 10 says one e-mail expert. “Spammers are gaining control of the Internet.” Passage 2 Many people who hate spam assume that it is protected as free speech. Not necessarily so. The United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that individuals 15 may preserve a threshold of privacy. “Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit,” wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. “We therefore categori- cally reject the argument that a vendor has a right to send 20 unwanted material into the home of another.” With regard to a seemingly similar problem, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 made it illegal in the United States to send unsolicited faxes; why not extend the act to include unsolicited bulk e-mail? 25 7. The primary purpose of Passage 2 is to A. confirm a widely held belief Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. discuss the inadequacies of a ruling Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. defend a controversial technology Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. analyze a widespread social problem Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. lay the foundation for a course of action Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 8 of 24 8. Question Read the following passages and answer the question that follows. Passage 1 I know what your e-mail in-box looks like, and it isn’t pretty: a babble of come-ons and lies from hucksters and con artists. To find your real e-mail, you must wade through the torrent of fraud and obscenity known politely as “unsolicited bulk e-mail” and colloquially as “spam.” 5 In a perverse tribute to the power of the online revolution, we are all suddenly getting the same mail: easy weight loss, get-rich-quick schemes, etc. The crush of these mes- sages is now numbered in billions per day. “It’s becoming a major systems and engineering and network problem,” 10 says one e-mail expert. “Spammers are gaining control of the Internet.” Passage 2 Many people who hate spam assume that it is protected as free speech. Not necessarily so. The United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that individuals 15 may preserve a threshold of privacy. “Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit,” wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. “We therefore categori- cally reject the argument that a vendor has a right to send 20 unwanted material into the home of another.” With regard to a seemingly similar problem, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 made it illegal in the United States to send unsolicited faxes; why not extend the act to include unsolicited bulk e-mail? 25 8. What would be the most likely reaction by the author of Passage 1 to the argument cited in lines 16-21 of Passage 2 (“Nothing . . . another”) ? A. Surprise at the assumption that freedom of speech is indispensable to democracy Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. Dismay at the Supreme Court’s vigorous defense of vendors’ rights Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. Hope that the same reasoning would be applied to all unsolicited e-mail Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. Concern for the plight of mass marketers facing substantial economic losses Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. Appreciation for the political complexity of the debate about spam Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 9 of 24 9. Question Read the following passages and answer the question that follows. Passage 1 I know what your e-mail in-box looks like, and it isn’t pretty: a babble of come-ons and lies from hucksters and con artists. To find your real e-mail, you must wade through the torrent of fraud and obscenity known politely as “unsolicited bulk e-mail” and colloquially as “spam.” 5 In a perverse tribute to the power of the online revolution, we are all suddenly getting the same mail: easy weight loss, get-rich-quick schemes, etc. The crush of these mes- sages is now numbered in billions per day. “It’s becoming a major systems and engineering and network problem,” 10 says one e-mail expert. “Spammers are gaining control of the Internet.” Passage 2 Many people who hate spam assume that it is protected as free speech. Not necessarily so. The United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that individuals 15 may preserve a threshold of privacy. “Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit,” wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. “We therefore categori- cally reject the argument that a vendor has a right to send 20 unwanted material into the home of another.” With regard to a seemingly similar problem, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 made it illegal in the United States to send unsolicited faxes; why not extend the act to include unsolicited bulk e-mail? 25 9. Unlike the author of Passage 1, the author of Passage 2 A. criticizes a practice Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. offers an example Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. proposes a solution Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. states an opinion Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. quotes an expert Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 10 of 24 10. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a novel set in the early twentieth century. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, is speaking with Cecil Vyse about a mutual acquaintance, Lucy Honeychurch. Miss Honeychurch has recently returned from a journey with her older cousin and chaperone, Miss Bartlett. “Lucy Honeychurch has no faults,” said Cecil, with grave sincerity. “I quite agree. At present she has none.” “At present?” “I’m not cynical. I’m only thinking of my pet theory 5 about Miss Honeychurch. Does it seem reasonable that she should play piano so wonderfully, and live so quietly? I suspect that someday she shall be wonderful in both. The water-tight compartments in her will break down, and music and life will mingle. Then we shall have her 10 heroically good, heroically bad—too heroic, perhaps, to be good or bad.” Cecil found his companion interesting. “And at present you think her not wonderful as far as life goes?” 15 “Well, I must say I’ve only seen her at Tunbridge Wells, where she was not wonderful, and at Florence. She wasn’t wonderful in Florence either, but I kept on expecting that she would be.” “In what way?” 20 Conversation had become agreeable to them, and they were pacing up and down the terrace. “I could as easily tell you what tune she’ll play next. There was simply the sense that she found wings and meant to use them. I can show you a beautiful picture 25 in my diary. Miss Honeychurch as a kite, Miss Bartlett holding the string. Picture number two: the string breaks.” The sketch was in his diary, but it had been made after- wards, when he viewed things artistically. At the time he had given surreptitious tugs to the string himself. 30 “But the string never broke?” “No. I mightn’t have seen Miss Honeychurch rise, but I should certainly have heard Miss Bartlett fall.” “It has broken now,” said the young man in low, vibrating tones. 35 Immediately he realized that of all the conceited, ludicrous, contemptible ways of announcing an engage- ment this was the worst. He cursed his love of metaphor; had he suggested that he was a star and that Lucy was soaring up to reach him? 40 “Broken? What do you mean?” “I meant,” Cecil said stiffly, “that she is going to marry me.” The clergyman was conscious of some bitter disappointment which he could not keep out of his 45 voice. “I am sorry; I must apologize. I had no idea you were intimate with her, or I should never have talked in this flippant, superficial way. You ought to have stopped me.” And down in the garden he saw Lucy 50 herself; yes, he was disappointed. Cecil, who naturally preferred congratulations to apologies, drew down the corner of his mouth. Was this the reaction his action would get from the whole world? Of course, he despised the world as a whole; 55 every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement. “I’m sorry I have given you a shock,” he said dryly. “I fear that Lucy’s choice does not meet with your approval.” 60 10. Cecil’s remark in line 1 (“Lucy . . . faults”) is made in a tone of A. great conviction Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. studied neutrality Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. playful irony Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. genuine surprise Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. weary cynicism Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 11 of 24 11. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a novel set in the early twentieth century. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, is speaking with Cecil Vyse about a mutual acquaintance, Lucy Honeychurch. Miss Honeychurch has recently returned from a journey with her older cousin and chaperone, Miss Bartlett. “Lucy Honeychurch has no faults,” said Cecil, with grave sincerity. “I quite agree. At present she has none.” “At present?” “I’m not cynical. I’m only thinking of my pet theory 5 about Miss Honeychurch. Does it seem reasonable that she should play piano so wonderfully, and live so quietly? I suspect that someday she shall be wonderful in both. The water-tight compartments in her will break down, and music and life will mingle. Then we shall have her 10 heroically good, heroically bad—too heroic, perhaps, to be good or bad.” Cecil found his companion interesting. “And at present you think her not wonderful as far as life goes?” 15 “Well, I must say I’ve only seen her at Tunbridge Wells, where she was not wonderful, and at Florence. She wasn’t wonderful in Florence either, but I kept on expecting that she would be.” “In what way?” 20 Conversation had become agreeable to them, and they were pacing up and down the terrace. “I could as easily tell you what tune she’ll play next. There was simply the sense that she found wings and meant to use them. I can show you a beautiful picture 25 in my diary. Miss Honeychurch as a kite, Miss Bartlett holding the string. Picture number two: the string breaks.” The sketch was in his diary, but it had been made after- wards, when he viewed things artistically. At the time he had given surreptitious tugs to the string himself. 30 “But the string never broke?” “No. I mightn’t have seen Miss Honeychurch rise, but I should certainly have heard Miss Bartlett fall.” “It has broken now,” said the young man in low, vibrating tones. 35 Immediately he realized that of all the conceited, ludicrous, contemptible ways of announcing an engage- ment this was the worst. He cursed his love of metaphor; had he suggested that he was a star and that Lucy was soaring up to reach him? 40 “Broken? What do you mean?” “I meant,” Cecil said stiffly, “that she is going to marry me.” The clergyman was conscious of some bitter disappointment which he could not keep out of his 45 voice. “I am sorry; I must apologize. I had no idea you were intimate with her, or I should never have talked in this flippant, superficial way. You ought to have stopped me.” And down in the garden he saw Lucy 50 herself; yes, he was disappointed. Cecil, who naturally preferred congratulations to apologies, drew down the corner of his mouth. Was this the reaction his action would get from the whole world? Of course, he despised the world as a whole; 55 every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement. “I’m sorry I have given you a shock,” he said dryly. “I fear that Lucy’s choice does not meet with your approval.” 60 11. Mr. Beebe asks the question in lines 6-7 (“Does . . . quietly”) primarily in order to A. raise an urgent concern Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. anticipate a possible objection Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. challenge a widely accepted theory Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. note an apparent inconsistency Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. criticize a popular pastime Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 12 of 24 12. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a novel set in the early twentieth century. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, is speaking with Cecil Vyse about a mutual acquaintance, Lucy Honeychurch. Miss Honeychurch has recently returned from a journey with her older cousin and chaperone, Miss Bartlett. “Lucy Honeychurch has no faults,” said Cecil, with grave sincerity. “I quite agree. At present she has none.” “At present?” “I’m not cynical. I’m only thinking of my pet theory 5 about Miss Honeychurch. Does it seem reasonable that she should play piano so wonderfully, and live so quietly? I suspect that someday she shall be wonderful in both. The water-tight compartments in her will break down, and music and life will mingle. Then we shall have her 10 heroically good, heroically bad—too heroic, perhaps, to be good or bad.” Cecil found his companion interesting. “And at present you think her not wonderful as far as life goes?” 15 “Well, I must say I’ve only seen her at Tunbridge Wells, where she was not wonderful, and at Florence. She wasn’t wonderful in Florence either, but I kept on expecting that she would be.” “In what way?” 20 Conversation had become agreeable to them, and they were pacing up and down the terrace. “I could as easily tell you what tune she’ll play next. There was simply the sense that she found wings and meant to use them. I can show you a beautiful picture 25 in my diary. Miss Honeychurch as a kite, Miss Bartlett holding the string. Picture number two: the string breaks.” The sketch was in his diary, but it had been made after- wards, when he viewed things artistically. At the time he had given surreptitious tugs to the string himself. 30 “But the string never broke?” “No. I mightn’t have seen Miss Honeychurch rise, but I should certainly have heard Miss Bartlett fall.” “It has broken now,” said the young man in low, vibrating tones. 35 Immediately he realized that of all the conceited, ludicrous, contemptible ways of announcing an engage- ment this was the worst. He cursed his love of metaphor; had he suggested that he was a star and that Lucy was soaring up to reach him? 40 “Broken? What do you mean?” “I meant,” Cecil said stiffly, “that she is going to marry me.” The clergyman was conscious of some bitter disappointment which he could not keep out of his 45 voice. “I am sorry; I must apologize. I had no idea you were intimate with her, or I should never have talked in this flippant, superficial way. You ought to have stopped me.” And down in the garden he saw Lucy 50 herself; yes, he was disappointed. Cecil, who naturally preferred congratulations to apologies, drew down the corner of his mouth. Was this the reaction his action would get from the whole world? Of course, he despised the world as a whole; 55 every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement. “I’m sorry I have given you a shock,” he said dryly. “I fear that Lucy’s choice does not meet with your approval.” 60 12. Mr. Beebe’s statement, “The water-tight . . . bad” (lines 9-11), suggests that Lucy will A. ultimately become a famous and respected musician Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. eventually play music in a less disciplined fashion Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. one day begin to live with great passion Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. soon regret an impetuous decision Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. someday marry a man who will be the cause of her undoing Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 13 of 24 13. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a novel set in the early twentieth century. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, is speaking with Cecil Vyse about a mutual acquaintance, Lucy Honeychurch. Miss Honeychurch has recently returned from a journey with her older cousin and chaperone, Miss Bartlett. “Lucy Honeychurch has no faults,” said Cecil, with grave sincerity. “I quite agree. At present she has none.” “At present?” “I’m not cynical. I’m only thinking of my pet theory 5 about Miss Honeychurch. Does it seem reasonable that she should play piano so wonderfully, and live so quietly? I suspect that someday she shall be wonderful in both. The water-tight compartments in her will break down, and music and life will mingle. Then we shall have her 10 heroically good, heroically bad—too heroic, perhaps, to be good or bad.” Cecil found his companion interesting. “And at present you think her not wonderful as far as life goes?” 15 “Well, I must say I’ve only seen her at Tunbridge Wells, where she was not wonderful, and at Florence. She wasn’t wonderful in Florence either, but I kept on expecting that she would be.” “In what way?” 20 Conversation had become agreeable to them, and they were pacing up and down the terrace. “I could as easily tell you what tune she’ll play next. There was simply the sense that she found wings and meant to use them. I can show you a beautiful picture 25 in my diary. Miss Honeychurch as a kite, Miss Bartlett holding the string. Picture number two: the string breaks.” The sketch was in his diary, but it had been made after- wards, when he viewed things artistically. At the time he had given surreptitious tugs to the string himself. 30 “But the string never broke?” “No. I mightn’t have seen Miss Honeychurch rise, but I should certainly have heard Miss Bartlett fall.” “It has broken now,” said the young man in low, vibrating tones. 35 Immediately he realized that of all the conceited, ludicrous, contemptible ways of announcing an engage- ment this was the worst. He cursed his love of metaphor; had he suggested that he was a star and that Lucy was soaring up to reach him? 40 “Broken? What do you mean?” “I meant,” Cecil said stiffly, “that she is going to marry me.” The clergyman was conscious of some bitter disappointment which he could not keep out of his 45 voice. “I am sorry; I must apologize. I had no idea you were intimate with her, or I should never have talked in this flippant, superficial way. You ought to have stopped me.” And down in the garden he saw Lucy 50 herself; yes, he was disappointed. Cecil, who naturally preferred congratulations to apologies, drew down the corner of his mouth. Was this the reaction his action would get from the whole world? Of course, he despised the world as a whole; 55 every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement. “I’m sorry I have given you a shock,” he said dryly. “I fear that Lucy’s choice does not meet with your approval.” 60 13. In line 24, “sense” most nearly means A. definition Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. intelligence Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. plausibility Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. consensus Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. impression Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 14 of 24 14. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a novel set in the early twentieth century. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, is speaking with Cecil Vyse about a mutual acquaintance, Lucy Honeychurch. Miss Honeychurch has recently returned from a journey with her older cousin and chaperone, Miss Bartlett. “Lucy Honeychurch has no faults,” said Cecil, with grave sincerity. “I quite agree. At present she has none.” “At present?” “I’m not cynical. I’m only thinking of my pet theory 5 about Miss Honeychurch. Does it seem reasonable that she should play piano so wonderfully, and live so quietly? I suspect that someday she shall be wonderful in both. The water-tight compartments in her will break down, and music and life will mingle. Then we shall have her 10 heroically good, heroically bad—too heroic, perhaps, to be good or bad.” Cecil found his companion interesting. “And at present you think her not wonderful as far as life goes?” 15 “Well, I must say I’ve only seen her at Tunbridge Wells, where she was not wonderful, and at Florence. She wasn’t wonderful in Florence either, but I kept on expecting that she would be.” “In what way?” 20 Conversation had become agreeable to them, and they were pacing up and down the terrace. “I could as easily tell you what tune she’ll play next. There was simply the sense that she found wings and meant to use them. I can show you a beautiful picture 25 in my diary. Miss Honeychurch as a kite, Miss Bartlett holding the string. Picture number two: the string breaks.” The sketch was in his diary, but it had been made after- wards, when he viewed things artistically. At the time he had given surreptitious tugs to the string himself. 30 “But the string never broke?” “No. I mightn’t have seen Miss Honeychurch rise, but I should certainly have heard Miss Bartlett fall.” “It has broken now,” said the young man in low, vibrating tones. 35 Immediately he realized that of all the conceited, ludicrous, contemptible ways of announcing an engage- ment this was the worst. He cursed his love of metaphor; had he suggested that he was a star and that Lucy was soaring up to reach him? 40 “Broken? What do you mean?” “I meant,” Cecil said stiffly, “that she is going to marry me.” The clergyman was conscious of some bitter disappointment which he could not keep out of his 45 voice. “I am sorry; I must apologize. I had no idea you were intimate with her, or I should never have talked in this flippant, superficial way. You ought to have stopped me.” And down in the garden he saw Lucy 50 herself; yes, he was disappointed. Cecil, who naturally preferred congratulations to apologies, drew down the corner of his mouth. Was this the reaction his action would get from the whole world? Of course, he despised the world as a whole; 55 every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement. “I’m sorry I have given you a shock,” he said dryly. “I fear that Lucy’s choice does not meet with your approval.” 60 14. For Mr. Beebe, “Picture number two” (line 27) represents A. a misleading occurrence Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. a dangerous gamble Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. an unlikely development Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. an anticipated outcome Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. an avoidable difficulty Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 15 of 24 15. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a novel set in the early twentieth century. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, is speaking with Cecil Vyse about a mutual acquaintance, Lucy Honeychurch. Miss Honeychurch has recently returned from a journey with her older cousin and chaperone, Miss Bartlett. “Lucy Honeychurch has no faults,” said Cecil, with grave sincerity. “I quite agree. At present she has none.” “At present?” “I’m not cynical. I’m only thinking of my pet theory 5 about Miss Honeychurch. Does it seem reasonable that she should play piano so wonderfully, and live so quietly? I suspect that someday she shall be wonderful in both. The water-tight compartments in her will break down, and music and life will mingle. Then we shall have her 10 heroically good, heroically bad—too heroic, perhaps, to be good or bad.” Cecil found his companion interesting. “And at present you think her not wonderful as far as life goes?” 15 “Well, I must say I’ve only seen her at Tunbridge Wells, where she was not wonderful, and at Florence. She wasn’t wonderful in Florence either, but I kept on expecting that she would be.” “In what way?” 20 Conversation had become agreeable to them, and they were pacing up and down the terrace. “I could as easily tell you what tune she’ll play next. There was simply the sense that she found wings and meant to use them. I can show you a beautiful picture 25 in my diary. Miss Honeychurch as a kite, Miss Bartlett holding the string. Picture number two: the string breaks.” The sketch was in his diary, but it had been made after- wards, when he viewed things artistically. At the time he had given surreptitious tugs to the string himself. 30 “But the string never broke?” “No. I mightn’t have seen Miss Honeychurch rise, but I should certainly have heard Miss Bartlett fall.” “It has broken now,” said the young man in low, vibrating tones. 35 Immediately he realized that of all the conceited, ludicrous, contemptible ways of announcing an engage- ment this was the worst. He cursed his love of metaphor; had he suggested that he was a star and that Lucy was soaring up to reach him? 40 “Broken? What do you mean?” “I meant,” Cecil said stiffly, “that she is going to marry me.” The clergyman was conscious of some bitter disappointment which he could not keep out of his 45 voice. “I am sorry; I must apologize. I had no idea you were intimate with her, or I should never have talked in this flippant, superficial way. You ought to have stopped me.” And down in the garden he saw Lucy 50 herself; yes, he was disappointed. Cecil, who naturally preferred congratulations to apologies, drew down the corner of his mouth. Was this the reaction his action would get from the whole world? Of course, he despised the world as a whole; 55 every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement. “I’m sorry I have given you a shock,” he said dryly. “I fear that Lucy’s choice does not meet with your approval.” 60 15. Ultimately, Cecil views his remark in line 34 (“It . . . now”) as A. singularly poetic Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. particularly memorable Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. embarrassingly inapt Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. excessively critical Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. regrettably underhanded Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 16 of 24 16. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a novel set in the early twentieth century. Mr. Beebe, a clergyman, is speaking with Cecil Vyse about a mutual acquaintance, Lucy Honeychurch. Miss Honeychurch has recently returned from a journey with her older cousin and chaperone, Miss Bartlett. “Lucy Honeychurch has no faults,” said Cecil, with grave sincerity. “I quite agree. At present she has none.” “At present?” “I’m not cynical. I’m only thinking of my pet theory 5 about Miss Honeychurch. Does it seem reasonable that she should play piano so wonderfully, and live so quietly? I suspect that someday she shall be wonderful in both. The water-tight compartments in her will break down, and music and life will mingle. Then we shall have her 10 heroically good, heroically bad—too heroic, perhaps, to be good or bad.” Cecil found his companion interesting. “And at present you think her not wonderful as far as life goes?” 15 “Well, I must say I’ve only seen her at Tunbridge Wells, where she was not wonderful, and at Florence. She wasn’t wonderful in Florence either, but I kept on expecting that she would be.” “In what way?” 20 Conversation had become agreeable to them, and they were pacing up and down the terrace. “I could as easily tell you what tune she’ll play next. There was simply the sense that she found wings and meant to use them. I can show you a beautiful picture 25 in my diary. Miss Honeychurch as a kite, Miss Bartlett holding the string. Picture number two: the string breaks.” The sketch was in his diary, but it had been made after- wards, when he viewed things artistically. At the time he had given surreptitious tugs to the string himself. 30 “But the string never broke?” “No. I mightn’t have seen Miss Honeychurch rise, but I should certainly have heard Miss Bartlett fall.” “It has broken now,” said the young man in low, vibrating tones. 35 Immediately he realized that of all the conceited, ludicrous, contemptible ways of announcing an engage- ment this was the worst. He cursed his love of metaphor; had he suggested that he was a star and that Lucy was soaring up to reach him? 40 “Broken? What do you mean?” “I meant,” Cecil said stiffly, “that she is going to marry me.” The clergyman was conscious of some bitter disappointment which he could not keep out of his 45 voice. “I am sorry; I must apologize. I had no idea you were intimate with her, or I should never have talked in this flippant, superficial way. You ought to have stopped me.” And down in the garden he saw Lucy 50 herself; yes, he was disappointed. Cecil, who naturally preferred congratulations to apologies, drew down the corner of his mouth. Was this the reaction his action would get from the whole world? Of course, he despised the world as a whole; 55 every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement. “I’m sorry I have given you a shock,” he said dryly. “I fear that Lucy’s choice does not meet with your approval.” 60 16. The question in lines 39-40 (“had . . . him ”) suggests that Cecil fears that Mr. Beebe will A. detect the lack of originality in his thinking Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. consider him to be vain Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. tell Lucy of his inappropriate remark Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. distrust him as a confidant Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. attempt to block his engagement to Lucy Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 17 of 24 17. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 17. The “dark cloud” mentioned in line 4 refers to an A. atypical diagnosis Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. unsupported hypothesis Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. unknown threat Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. evil influence Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. important contradiction Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 18 of 24 18. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 18. Which pairing best represents the different models of the universe presented in lines 7-14 ? A. Big and little Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. Old and new Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. Complex and simple Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. Verified and undocumented Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. Theoretical and practical Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 19 of 24 19. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 19. The author’s use of italics in line 20 serves primarily to A. draw attention to a commonly known hypothesis Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. stress a speculative aspect of two theories Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. support a difficult claim Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. underscore a surprising point Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. emphasize an area of agreement Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 20 of 24 20. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 20. The author uses the “automobile” (lines 45-46) to represent equations that A. demand a professional’s attention Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. are intrinsically unreliable Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. do not work together effectively Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. can be easily adjusted if necessary Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. are based on dated mathematics Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 21 of 24 21. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 21. Which of the following, if available, would best refute the author’s assertion about the “young upstart” (line 57) ? A. Evidence that certain kinds of particles in nature exceed the speed of light Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. Confirmation of conditions that existed in the earliest stages of the big bang Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. Speculation that the deep interior of a black hole is not as dense as scientists have believed Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. Mathematical formulas that link general relativity and quantum mechanics in the same realm Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. Proof that the laws governing the universe depend on the size of the system being studied Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 22 of 24 22. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 22. The primary reason described for the usefulness of the theory mentioned in line 57 is its ability to A. explain new phenomena Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. replace the theory of general relativity Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. reinforce the predictions of quantum mechanics Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. indicate where other theories are inapplicable Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. reconcile two seemingly contradictory theories Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 23 of 24 23. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 23. Those who hold the “conclusion” referred to in line 18 would most likely believe that the “marriage” (line 68) was an A. inevitable result of their research Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. unjustifiable elevation of their hypotheses Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. inadvisable use of research funds Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. unfortunate consequence Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. impossible outcome Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect Question 24 of 24 24. Question Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The following passage is adapted from a book published in 1999. Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century—even in the midst of some of the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two 5 foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other 10 is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the small- est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed 15 to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories 20 underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years—progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter—are mutually incompatible. If you have not heard previously about this ferocious 25 antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations, physicists study things that are either small and light (like atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means 30 that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark- ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been pretty close. 35 But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that 40 are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul- taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto- 45 mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that 50 the hostility between quantum mechanics and general relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding. Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are large and a different, incompatible set when things are 55 small? Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians 60 around the world has revealed that this new approach to describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more: within this new framework, general relativity and 65 quantum mechanics require one another for the theory to make sense. According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings 70 in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation. 24. The author uses dance imagery in lines 71-72 in order to A. suggest a similarity between the study of science and the study of dance Correct Incorrect Correct answer B. highlight the extremes found in the physical world Correct Incorrect Correct answer C. emphasize the different ways that binary stars move Correct Incorrect Correct answer D. illustrate the intricacy of the subatomic world of quarks Correct Incorrect Correct answer E. suggest the cohesive nature of both science and dance Correct Incorrect Correct answer Correct Incorrect
