Question:
Passage: We are told that it is not within the "province of woman," to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a "political question," and we are "stepping out of our  sphere," when we take part in its discussion. It is nottrue that it is merely a political question, it is likewise a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of religion; a question which, while it involves considerations of immense importance to the welfare and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into thehome-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to unrequited toil-whether he shall walk erect in the dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckonedamong the beasts which perish - whether his bones and sinews shall be his own, or another's-whether his child shall receive the protection of its natural guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest ofthe master may dictate $\_\ldots$ these considerations are all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.And is a subject comprehending interests of such magnitude, merely a "political question," and one in which woman "can take no part without losingsomething of the modesty and gentleness which are her most appropriate ornaments"? May not the "ornament of a meek and quiet spirit" exist with an upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart isopen to the claims of humanity, or less modest because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their rescue?By the Constitution of the United States, the  whole physical power of the North is pledged for the suppression of domestic insurrections, and should the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the North are bound to make common cause with the 40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet, every effort on the part of the slave, for the attainment of his freedom. And when the father, husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes to mingle in the unholy warfare, "to become the 45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands,"1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and sister feel that they have no interest in this subject? Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she55 will not be deterred from the performance of her duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the cry of political question.But admitting it to be a political question, have we no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of our own family circle, and of the present hour? May we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the 65 earth? Must we witness "the headlong rage or heedless folly," with which our nation is rushing onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its downward course? Shall we silently behold the land which we love with all the heart-warm affection of70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach throughout the world, by this system which is already tolling the death-bell of her decease among the nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely our hearts cling to "our altars and our homes," the80 more fervent are our aspirations that every inhabitant of our land may be protected in his fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our course, then, still be onward!
Q: In the passage, Smith argues that it is possible for women to engage in which activity?
Choices:
A.) Acting according to humanitarian principles while preserving their femininity
B.) Adhering to personal morality while being politically neutral
C.) Resisting calls for war while still opposing slavery
D.) Contributing to their family's financial security while meeting social expectations
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: We are told that it is not within the "province of woman," to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a "political question," and we are "stepping out of our  sphere," when we take part in its discussion. It is nottrue that it is merely a political question, it is likewise a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of religion; a question which, while it involves considerations of immense importance to the welfare and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into thehome-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to unrequited toil-whether he shall walk erect in the dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckonedamong the beasts which perish - whether his bones and sinews shall be his own, or another's-whether his child shall receive the protection of its natural guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest ofthe master may dictate $\_\ldots$ these considerations are all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.And is a subject comprehending interests of such magnitude, merely a "political question," and one in which woman "can take no part without losingsomething of the modesty and gentleness which are her most appropriate ornaments"? May not the "ornament of a meek and quiet spirit" exist with an upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart isopen to the claims of humanity, or less modest because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their rescue?By the Constitution of the United States, the  whole physical power of the North is pledged for the suppression of domestic insurrections, and should the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the North are bound to make common cause with the 40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet, every effort on the part of the slave, for the attainment of his freedom. And when the father, husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes to mingle in the unholy warfare, "to become the 45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands,"1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and sister feel that they have no interest in this subject? Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she55 will not be deterred from the performance of her duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the cry of political question.But admitting it to be a political question, have we no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of our own family circle, and of the present hour? May we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the 65 earth? Must we witness "the headlong rage or heedless folly," with which our nation is rushing onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its downward course? Shall we silently behold the land which we love with all the heart-warm affection of70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach throughout the world, by this system which is already tolling the death-bell of her decease among the nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely our hearts cling to "our altars and our homes," the80 more fervent are our aspirations that every inhabitant of our land may be protected in his fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our course, then, still be onward!
Q: laws") According to Smith, the US Constitution requires which action on the part of the Northern free states if slaves were to revolt?
Choices:
A.) The Northern states would have to provide financial assistance to the rebelling slaves.
B.) The Northern states would have to help the slave states fight the slaves' rebellion.
C.) The Northern states would have to give shelter to refugees from the slave states.
D.) The Northern states would have to sever ties with the slave states.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: We are told that it is not within the "province of woman," to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a "political question," and we are "stepping out of our  sphere," when we take part in its discussion. It is nottrue that it is merely a political question, it is likewise a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of religion; a question which, while it involves considerations of immense importance to the welfare and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into thehome-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to unrequited toil-whether he shall walk erect in the dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckonedamong the beasts which perish - whether his bones and sinews shall be his own, or another's-whether his child shall receive the protection of its natural guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest ofthe master may dictate $\_\ldots$ these considerations are all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.And is a subject comprehending interests of such magnitude, merely a "political question," and one in which woman "can take no part without losingsomething of the modesty and gentleness which are her most appropriate ornaments"? May not the "ornament of a meek and quiet spirit" exist with an upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart isopen to the claims of humanity, or less modest because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their rescue?By the Constitution of the United States, the  whole physical power of the North is pledged for the suppression of domestic insurrections, and should the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the North are bound to make common cause with the 40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet, every effort on the part of the slave, for the attainment of his freedom. And when the father, husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes to mingle in the unholy warfare, "to become the 45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands,"1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and sister feel that they have no interest in this subject? Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she55 will not be deterred from the performance of her duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the cry of political question.But admitting it to be a political question, have we no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of our own family circle, and of the present hour? May we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the 65 earth? Must we witness "the headlong rage or heedless folly," with which our nation is rushing onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its downward course? Shall we silently behold the land which we love with all the heart-warm affection of70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach throughout the world, by this system which is already tolling the death-bell of her decease among the nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely our hearts cling to "our altars and our homes," the80 more fervent are our aspirations that every inhabitant of our land may be protected in his fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our course, then, still be onward!
Q: In the passage, Smith most strongly suggests that slavery affects the United States by
Choices:
A.) weakening the authority of the country's government.
B.) causing violent conflicts in many areas of the country.
C.) leading many women to disavow their allegiance to the country.
D.) lowering the country's reputation in the international community.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: \section{Passage 1}"Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a human health crisis," says biochemist Kim Lewis of  Northeastern University.Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests, teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria-even those thathave developed immunity to other drugs. The scientists' best efforts to create mutant bacteria with resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin could function effectively for decades before pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic drug development during the past century. But only about one percent of these organisms can be grown in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, haveremained uncultured and of limited use to medical science, until now. "Instead of trying to figure out the ideal conditions for each and every one of the millions of organisms out there in the environment, to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply growthem in their natural environment where they already have the conditions they need for growth," Lewis says.To do this, the team designed a gadget that sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,each perforated with pores that allow molecules like nutrients to diffuse through but don't allow the passage of cells. "We just use it to trick the bacteria into thinking that they are in their natural environment," Lewis says.The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper  respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the infections with no noticeable toxic effects.It's likely that teixobactin is effective because of  the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules that the cell creates organically. Many other antibiotics target the bacteria's proteins, and the genes that encode those proteins can mutate to 50 produce different structures.\section{Passage 2}Many good antibiotic families-penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline-come from soil fungi and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if we could grow more types of bacteria from soil-or55 from exotic environments, such as deep oceans-then we might find new natural antibiotics. In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others] found that they could isolate and grow individual soil bacteria-including types that can't normally be60 grown in the laboratory-in soil itself, which supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the bacteria reached a critical mass they could be transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued. This simple and elegant methodology is their most 65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown before.The first new antibiotic that they've found by this 70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though it doesn't look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed 75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important because there is a real problem with resistant tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also difficult to select teixobactin resistance.So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First, 80 teixobactin isn't a potential panacea. It doesn't kill the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to commercial manufacture will be challenging, since the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to85 grow. And, thirdly, it's early days yet. As with any antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections, and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of 90 "standard of care treatment." That's going to take five years and $\pounds 500$ million and these are numbers we must find ways to reduce (while not compromising safety) if we're to keep ahead of bacteria, which can evolve far more swiftly and cheaply.
Q: The first paragraph of Passage 1 primarily serves to
Choices:
A.) introduce a controversy that the study described in the passage is intended to resolve.
B.) identify a problem that the research discussed in the passage may help to address.
C.) present a claim that is supported and developed over the course of the passage.
D.) offer a theory that is challenged by the findings presented in the passage.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: \section{Passage 1}"Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a human health crisis," says biochemist Kim Lewis of  Northeastern University.Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests, teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria-even those thathave developed immunity to other drugs. The scientists' best efforts to create mutant bacteria with resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin could function effectively for decades before pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic drug development during the past century. But only about one percent of these organisms can be grown in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, haveremained uncultured and of limited use to medical science, until now. "Instead of trying to figure out the ideal conditions for each and every one of the millions of organisms out there in the environment, to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply growthem in their natural environment where they already have the conditions they need for growth," Lewis says.To do this, the team designed a gadget that sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,each perforated with pores that allow molecules like nutrients to diffuse through but don't allow the passage of cells. "We just use it to trick the bacteria into thinking that they are in their natural environment," Lewis says.The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper  respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the infections with no noticeable toxic effects.It's likely that teixobactin is effective because of  the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules that the cell creates organically. Many other antibiotics target the bacteria's proteins, and the genes that encode those proteins can mutate to 50 produce different structures.\section{Passage 2}Many good antibiotic families-penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline-come from soil fungi and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if we could grow more types of bacteria from soil-or55 from exotic environments, such as deep oceans-then we might find new natural antibiotics. In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others] found that they could isolate and grow individual soil bacteria-including types that can't normally be60 grown in the laboratory-in soil itself, which supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the bacteria reached a critical mass they could be transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued. This simple and elegant methodology is their most 65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown before.The first new antibiotic that they've found by this 70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though it doesn't look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed 75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important because there is a real problem with resistant tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also difficult to select teixobactin resistance.So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First, 80 teixobactin isn't a potential panacea. It doesn't kill the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to commercial manufacture will be challenging, since the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to85 grow. And, thirdly, it's early days yet. As with any antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections, and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of 90 "standard of care treatment." That's going to take five years and $\pounds 500$ million and these are numbers we must find ways to reduce (while not compromising safety) if we're to keep ahead of bacteria, which can evolve far more swiftly and cheaply.
Q: The author of Passage 1 suggests that an advantage of the method Lewis's team used to grow microorganisms is that it
Choices:
A.) identifies the requirements for soil bacteria to thrive and replicates those features in artificial soil.
B.) allows researchers to make use of soil bacteria that they had previously been unable to exploit.
C.) directly affects the cell walls of bacteria rather than the proteins those bacteria produce.
D.) enables soil bacteria to take in more nutrients than they typically consume in natural settings.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: \section{Passage 1}"Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a human health crisis," says biochemist Kim Lewis of  Northeastern University.Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests, teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria-even those thathave developed immunity to other drugs. The scientists' best efforts to create mutant bacteria with resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin could function effectively for decades before pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic drug development during the past century. But only about one percent of these organisms can be grown in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, haveremained uncultured and of limited use to medical science, until now. "Instead of trying to figure out the ideal conditions for each and every one of the millions of organisms out there in the environment, to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply growthem in their natural environment where they already have the conditions they need for growth," Lewis says.To do this, the team designed a gadget that sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,each perforated with pores that allow molecules like nutrients to diffuse through but don't allow the passage of cells. "We just use it to trick the bacteria into thinking that they are in their natural environment," Lewis says.The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper  respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the infections with no noticeable toxic effects.It's likely that teixobactin is effective because of  the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules that the cell creates organically. Many other antibiotics target the bacteria's proteins, and the genes that encode those proteins can mutate to 50 produce different structures.\section{Passage 2}Many good antibiotic families-penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline-come from soil fungi and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if we could grow more types of bacteria from soil-or55 from exotic environments, such as deep oceans-then we might find new natural antibiotics. In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others] found that they could isolate and grow individual soil bacteria-including types that can't normally be60 grown in the laboratory-in soil itself, which supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the bacteria reached a critical mass they could be transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued. This simple and elegant methodology is their most 65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown before.The first new antibiotic that they've found by this 70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though it doesn't look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed 75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important because there is a real problem with resistant tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also difficult to select teixobactin resistance.So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First, 80 teixobactin isn't a potential panacea. It doesn't kill the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to commercial manufacture will be challenging, since the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to85 grow. And, thirdly, it's early days yet. As with any antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections, and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of 90 "standard of care treatment." That's going to take five years and $\pounds 500$ million and these are numbers we must find ways to reduce (while not compromising safety) if we're to keep ahead of bacteria, which can evolve far more swiftly and cheaply.
Q: The author of Passage 2 would most likely agree with which statement about the development of teixobactin?
Choices:
A.) It casts doubt on the practicality of searching for new antibiotics in exotic environments.
B.) It confirms a long-held belief about a potential source of new antibiotics.
C.) It reveals that some antibiotics are effective against gram-negative bacteria.
D.) It shows that conventional methods can still yield new types of antibiotics.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: \section{Passage 1}"Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a human health crisis," says biochemist Kim Lewis of  Northeastern University.Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests, teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria-even those thathave developed immunity to other drugs. The scientists' best efforts to create mutant bacteria with resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin could function effectively for decades before pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic drug development during the past century. But only about one percent of these organisms can be grown in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, haveremained uncultured and of limited use to medical science, until now. "Instead of trying to figure out the ideal conditions for each and every one of the millions of organisms out there in the environment, to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply growthem in their natural environment where they already have the conditions they need for growth," Lewis says.To do this, the team designed a gadget that sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,each perforated with pores that allow molecules like nutrients to diffuse through but don't allow the passage of cells. "We just use it to trick the bacteria into thinking that they are in their natural environment," Lewis says.The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper  respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the infections with no noticeable toxic effects.It's likely that teixobactin is effective because of  the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules that the cell creates organically. Many other antibiotics target the bacteria's proteins, and the genes that encode those proteins can mutate to 50 produce different structures.\section{Passage 2}Many good antibiotic families-penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline-come from soil fungi and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if we could grow more types of bacteria from soil-or55 from exotic environments, such as deep oceans-then we might find new natural antibiotics. In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others] found that they could isolate and grow individual soil bacteria-including types that can't normally be60 grown in the laboratory-in soil itself, which supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the bacteria reached a critical mass they could be transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued. This simple and elegant methodology is their most 65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown before.The first new antibiotic that they've found by this 70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though it doesn't look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed 75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important because there is a real problem with resistant tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also difficult to select teixobactin resistance.So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First, 80 teixobactin isn't a potential panacea. It doesn't kill the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to commercial manufacture will be challenging, since the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to85 grow. And, thirdly, it's early days yet. As with any antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections, and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of 90 "standard of care treatment." That's going to take five years and $\pounds 500$ million and these are numbers we must find ways to reduce (while not compromising safety) if we're to keep ahead of bacteria, which can evolve far more swiftly and cheaply.
Q: In the last sentence of Passage 2, the author uses the phrase "five years and $\pounds 500$ million" primarily to
Choices:
A.) emphasize the scale of the effort needed to make teixobactin available for consumer use.
B.) compare the amount of money spent developing teixobactin with the amount spent developing other antibiotics
C.) criticize the level of funding that the government has committed to teixobactin development.
D.) underscore the amount of time and money that has already been spent researching teixobactin.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: \section{Passage 1}"Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a human health crisis," says biochemist Kim Lewis of  Northeastern University.Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests, teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria-even those thathave developed immunity to other drugs. The scientists' best efforts to create mutant bacteria with resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin could function effectively for decades before pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic drug development during the past century. But only about one percent of these organisms can be grown in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, haveremained uncultured and of limited use to medical science, until now. "Instead of trying to figure out the ideal conditions for each and every one of the millions of organisms out there in the environment, to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply growthem in their natural environment where they already have the conditions they need for growth," Lewis says.To do this, the team designed a gadget that sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,each perforated with pores that allow molecules like nutrients to diffuse through but don't allow the passage of cells. "We just use it to trick the bacteria into thinking that they are in their natural environment," Lewis says.The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper  respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the infections with no noticeable toxic effects.It's likely that teixobactin is effective because of  the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules that the cell creates organically. Many other antibiotics target the bacteria's proteins, and the genes that encode those proteins can mutate to 50 produce different structures.\section{Passage 2}Many good antibiotic families-penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline-come from soil fungi and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if we could grow more types of bacteria from soil-or55 from exotic environments, such as deep oceans-then we might find new natural antibiotics. In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others] found that they could isolate and grow individual soil bacteria-including types that can't normally be60 grown in the laboratory-in soil itself, which supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the bacteria reached a critical mass they could be transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued. This simple and elegant methodology is their most 65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown before.The first new antibiotic that they've found by this 70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though it doesn't look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed 75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important because there is a real problem with resistant tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also difficult to select teixobactin resistance.So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First, 80 teixobactin isn't a potential panacea. It doesn't kill the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to commercial manufacture will be challenging, since the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to85 grow. And, thirdly, it's early days yet. As with any antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections, and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of 90 "standard of care treatment." That's going to take five years and $\pounds 500$ million and these are numbers we must find ways to reduce (while not compromising safety) if we're to keep ahead of bacteria, which can evolve far more swiftly and cheaply.
Q: Which choice best describes the relationship between Passage 1 and Passage 2?
Choices:
A.) Passage 2 takes a dismissive stance regarding the findings mentioned in Passage 1.
B.) Passage 2 offers an evaluation of the significance of the research discussed in Passage 1.
C.) Passage 2 uses concrete examples to illustrate concepts considered in Passage 1.
D.) Passage 2 suggests a modification to the methodology described in Passage 1.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: \section{Passage 1}"Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a human health crisis," says biochemist Kim Lewis of  Northeastern University.Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests, teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria-even those thathave developed immunity to other drugs. The scientists' best efforts to create mutant bacteria with resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin could function effectively for decades before pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic drug development during the past century. But only about one percent of these organisms can be grown in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, haveremained uncultured and of limited use to medical science, until now. "Instead of trying to figure out the ideal conditions for each and every one of the millions of organisms out there in the environment, to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply growthem in their natural environment where they already have the conditions they need for growth," Lewis says.To do this, the team designed a gadget that sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,each perforated with pores that allow molecules like nutrients to diffuse through but don't allow the passage of cells. "We just use it to trick the bacteria into thinking that they are in their natural environment," Lewis says.The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper  respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the infections with no noticeable toxic effects.It's likely that teixobactin is effective because of  the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules that the cell creates organically. Many other antibiotics target the bacteria's proteins, and the genes that encode those proteins can mutate to 50 produce different structures.\section{Passage 2}Many good antibiotic families-penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline-come from soil fungi and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if we could grow more types of bacteria from soil-or55 from exotic environments, such as deep oceans-then we might find new natural antibiotics. In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others] found that they could isolate and grow individual soil bacteria-including types that can't normally be60 grown in the laboratory-in soil itself, which supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the bacteria reached a critical mass they could be transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued. This simple and elegant methodology is their most 65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown before.The first new antibiotic that they've found by this 70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though it doesn't look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed 75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important because there is a real problem with resistant tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also difficult to select teixobactin resistance.So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First, 80 teixobactin isn't a potential panacea. It doesn't kill the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to commercial manufacture will be challenging, since the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to85 grow. And, thirdly, it's early days yet. As with any antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections, and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of 90 "standard of care treatment." That's going to take five years and $\pounds 500$ million and these are numbers we must find ways to reduce (while not compromising safety) if we're to keep ahead of bacteria, which can evolve far more swiftly and cheaply.
Q: Both passages make the point that teixobactin could be useful in
Choices:
A.) shaping a new method of studying the effectiveness of antibiotics.
B.) standardizing the future development of antibiotics produced in laboratory environments.
C.) combating infections that are no longer responding to treatment with other antibiotics.
D.) controlling the spread of pathogenic soil fungi.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: \section{Passage 1}"Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a human health crisis," says biochemist Kim Lewis of  Northeastern University.Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests, teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria-even those thathave developed immunity to other drugs. The scientists' best efforts to create mutant bacteria with resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin could function effectively for decades before pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic drug development during the past century. But only about one percent of these organisms can be grown in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, haveremained uncultured and of limited use to medical science, until now. "Instead of trying to figure out the ideal conditions for each and every one of the millions of organisms out there in the environment, to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply growthem in their natural environment where they already have the conditions they need for growth," Lewis says.To do this, the team designed a gadget that sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,each perforated with pores that allow molecules like nutrients to diffuse through but don't allow the passage of cells. "We just use it to trick the bacteria into thinking that they are in their natural environment," Lewis says.The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper  respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the infections with no noticeable toxic effects.It's likely that teixobactin is effective because of  the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules that the cell creates organically. Many other antibiotics target the bacteria's proteins, and the genes that encode those proteins can mutate to 50 produce different structures.\section{Passage 2}Many good antibiotic families-penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline-come from soil fungi and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if we could grow more types of bacteria from soil-or55 from exotic environments, such as deep oceans-then we might find new natural antibiotics. In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others] found that they could isolate and grow individual soil bacteria-including types that can't normally be60 grown in the laboratory-in soil itself, which supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the bacteria reached a critical mass they could be transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued. This simple and elegant methodology is their most 65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown before.The first new antibiotic that they've found by this 70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though it doesn't look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed 75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important because there is a real problem with resistant tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also difficult to select teixobactin resistance.So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First, 80 teixobactin isn't a potential panacea. It doesn't kill the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to commercial manufacture will be challenging, since the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to85 grow. And, thirdly, it's early days yet. As with any antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections, and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of 90 "standard of care treatment." That's going to take five years and $\pounds 500$ million and these are numbers we must find ways to reduce (while not compromising safety) if we're to keep ahead of bacteria, which can evolve far more swiftly and cheaply.
Q: Information in Passage 2 best supports which conclusion about the mice in the experiment described in Passage 1?
Choices:
A.) Their upper respiratory tract infections were likely not caused by gram-negative bacteria.
B.) Teixobactin attacked the proteins of the bacteria that caused their upper respiratory tract infections.
C.) Gram-positive bacteria enhanced the effectiveness of teixobactin against their upper respiratory tract infections.
D.) Exposure to teixobactin made them less susceptible to subsequent upper respiratory tract infections.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: “I’ve come to inquire if you have work for me. That is, if.my performance pleased you before.” A deliberate prompt. I.didn’t want to be hired because of my need or his kindness. I.wanted my talent to be the reason he wanted me back..“Indeed” was all he offered..What now to fill the suspended moment? His new.projects. I asked. His eyebrows leapt up in symmetrical.curves..“A Byzantine chapel for the World’s Columbian.Exposition in Chicago next year. Four times bigger than the.Paris Exposition Universelle. It will be the greatest assembly.of artists since the fifteenth century.” He counted on his.fingers and then drummed them on the desk. “Only fifteen.months away. In 1893 the name of Louis Comfort Tiffany.will be on the lips of millions!” He stood up and swung open.his arms wide enough to embrace the whole world..I sensed his open palm somewhere in the air behind the.small of my back, ushering me to his massive, carved.mahogany exhibit table to see his sketches and watercolors..“Two round windows, The Infancy of Christ and Botticelli’s.Madonna and Child, will be set off by a dozen scenic side.windows.”.A huge undertaking. How richly fortunate. Surely there.would be opportunity for me to shine..Practically hopping from side to side, he made a show of.slinging down one large watercolor after another onto the.Persian carpet, each one a precise, fine-edged rendering of.what he wanted the window to be..“Gracious! You’ve been on fire. Go slower! Give me a.chance to admire each one.”.He unrolled the largest watercolor. “An eight-foot.mosaic behind the altar depicting a pair of peacocks.surrounded by grapevines.”.My breath whistled between my open lips. Above the.peacocks facing each other, he had transformed the.standard Christian icon of a crown of thorns into a.shimmering regal headdress for God the King, the thorns.replaced by large glass jewels in true Tiffany style..Astonishing how he could get mere watercolors so deep.and saturated, so like lacquer that they vibrated together as.surely as chords of a great church pipe organ. Even the.names of the hues bore an exotic richness. The peacocks’.necks in emerald green and sapphire blue. The tail feathers.in vermilion, Spanish ocher, Florida gold. The jewels in the.crown mandarin yellow and peridot. The background in.turquoise and cobalt. Oh, to get my hands on those.gorgeous hues. To feel the coolness of the blue glass, like.solid pieces of the sea. To chip the gigantic jewels for the.crown so they would sparkle and send out shafts of light..To forget everything but the glass before me and make of it.something resplendent..When I could trust my voice not to show too much.eagerness, I said, “I see your originality is in good health..Only you would put peacocks in a chapel.”.“Don’t you know?” he said in a spoof of incredulity..“They symbolized eternal life in Byzantine art. Their flesh.was thought to be incorruptible.”.“What a lucky find for you, that convenient tidbit of.information.”.He chuckled, so I was on safe ground..He tossed down more drawings. “A marble-and-mosaic.altar surrounded by mosaic columns, and a baptismal font.of opaque leaded glass and mosaic.”.“This dome is the lid of the basin? In opaque leaded.glass?”.He looked at it with nothing short of love, and showed.me its size with outstretched arms as though he were.hugging the thing..I was struck by a tantalizing idea. “Imagine it reduced in.size and made of translucent glass instead. Once you figure.how to secure the pieces in a dome, that could be the.method and the shape of a lampshade. A wraparound.window of, say”—I looked around the room—“peacock.feathers.”.He jerked his head up with a startled expression, the.idea dawning on him as if it were his own..“Lampshades in leaded glass,” he said in wonder, his.blue eyes sparking..“Just think where that could go,” I whispered.
Q: Which choice best describes what happens in the passage?
Choices:
A.) The narrator recounts the events that led another character to support her project.
B.) The narrator discusses shared professional interests with another character.
C.) The narrator struggles to understand the motivations of another character.
D.) The narrator reflects on how the behavior of another character has changed.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: “I’ve come to inquire if you have work for me. That is, if.my performance pleased you before.” A deliberate prompt. I.didn’t want to be hired because of my need or his kindness. I.wanted my talent to be the reason he wanted me back..“Indeed” was all he offered..What now to fill the suspended moment? His new.projects. I asked. His eyebrows leapt up in symmetrical.curves..“A Byzantine chapel for the World’s Columbian.Exposition in Chicago next year. Four times bigger than the.Paris Exposition Universelle. It will be the greatest assembly.of artists since the fifteenth century.” He counted on his.fingers and then drummed them on the desk. “Only fifteen.months away. In 1893 the name of Louis Comfort Tiffany.will be on the lips of millions!” He stood up and swung open.his arms wide enough to embrace the whole world..I sensed his open palm somewhere in the air behind the.small of my back, ushering me to his massive, carved.mahogany exhibit table to see his sketches and watercolors..“Two round windows, The Infancy of Christ and Botticelli’s.Madonna and Child, will be set off by a dozen scenic side.windows.”.A huge undertaking. How richly fortunate. Surely there.would be opportunity for me to shine..Practically hopping from side to side, he made a show of.slinging down one large watercolor after another onto the.Persian carpet, each one a precise, fine-edged rendering of.what he wanted the window to be..“Gracious! You’ve been on fire. Go slower! Give me a.chance to admire each one.”.He unrolled the largest watercolor. “An eight-foot.mosaic behind the altar depicting a pair of peacocks.surrounded by grapevines.”.My breath whistled between my open lips. Above the.peacocks facing each other, he had transformed the.standard Christian icon of a crown of thorns into a.shimmering regal headdress for God the King, the thorns.replaced by large glass jewels in true Tiffany style..Astonishing how he could get mere watercolors so deep.and saturated, so like lacquer that they vibrated together as.surely as chords of a great church pipe organ. Even the.names of the hues bore an exotic richness. The peacocks’.necks in emerald green and sapphire blue. The tail feathers.in vermilion, Spanish ocher, Florida gold. The jewels in the.crown mandarin yellow and peridot. The background in.turquoise and cobalt. Oh, to get my hands on those.gorgeous hues. To feel the coolness of the blue glass, like.solid pieces of the sea. To chip the gigantic jewels for the.crown so they would sparkle and send out shafts of light..To forget everything but the glass before me and make of it.something resplendent..When I could trust my voice not to show too much.eagerness, I said, “I see your originality is in good health..Only you would put peacocks in a chapel.”.“Don’t you know?” he said in a spoof of incredulity..“They symbolized eternal life in Byzantine art. Their flesh.was thought to be incorruptible.”.“What a lucky find for you, that convenient tidbit of.information.”.He chuckled, so I was on safe ground..He tossed down more drawings. “A marble-and-mosaic.altar surrounded by mosaic columns, and a baptismal font.of opaque leaded glass and mosaic.”.“This dome is the lid of the basin? In opaque leaded.glass?”.He looked at it with nothing short of love, and showed.me its size with outstretched arms as though he were.hugging the thing..I was struck by a tantalizing idea. “Imagine it reduced in.size and made of translucent glass instead. Once you figure.how to secure the pieces in a dome, that could be the.method and the shape of a lampshade. A wraparound.window of, say”—I looked around the room—“peacock.feathers.”.He jerked his head up with a startled expression, the.idea dawning on him as if it were his own..“Lampshades in leaded glass,” he said in wonder, his.blue eyes sparking..“Just think where that could go,” I whispered.
Q: According to the passage, Tiffany looks forward tothe upcoming World’s Columbian Exposition inChicago as an opportunity to
Choices:
A.) sell many decorative objects.
B.) showcase pieces that have earned critical acclaim.
C.) gain greater popular recognition.
D.) collaborate with other famous artists.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: “I’ve come to inquire if you have work for me. That is, if.my performance pleased you before.” A deliberate prompt. I.didn’t want to be hired because of my need or his kindness. I.wanted my talent to be the reason he wanted me back..“Indeed” was all he offered..What now to fill the suspended moment? His new.projects. I asked. His eyebrows leapt up in symmetrical.curves..“A Byzantine chapel for the World’s Columbian.Exposition in Chicago next year. Four times bigger than the.Paris Exposition Universelle. It will be the greatest assembly.of artists since the fifteenth century.” He counted on his.fingers and then drummed them on the desk. “Only fifteen.months away. In 1893 the name of Louis Comfort Tiffany.will be on the lips of millions!” He stood up and swung open.his arms wide enough to embrace the whole world..I sensed his open palm somewhere in the air behind the.small of my back, ushering me to his massive, carved.mahogany exhibit table to see his sketches and watercolors..“Two round windows, The Infancy of Christ and Botticelli’s.Madonna and Child, will be set off by a dozen scenic side.windows.”.A huge undertaking. How richly fortunate. Surely there.would be opportunity for me to shine..Practically hopping from side to side, he made a show of.slinging down one large watercolor after another onto the.Persian carpet, each one a precise, fine-edged rendering of.what he wanted the window to be..“Gracious! You’ve been on fire. Go slower! Give me a.chance to admire each one.”.He unrolled the largest watercolor. “An eight-foot.mosaic behind the altar depicting a pair of peacocks.surrounded by grapevines.”.My breath whistled between my open lips. Above the.peacocks facing each other, he had transformed the.standard Christian icon of a crown of thorns into a.shimmering regal headdress for God the King, the thorns.replaced by large glass jewels in true Tiffany style..Astonishing how he could get mere watercolors so deep.and saturated, so like lacquer that they vibrated together as.surely as chords of a great church pipe organ. Even the.names of the hues bore an exotic richness. The peacocks’.necks in emerald green and sapphire blue. The tail feathers.in vermilion, Spanish ocher, Florida gold. The jewels in the.crown mandarin yellow and peridot. The background in.turquoise and cobalt. Oh, to get my hands on those.gorgeous hues. To feel the coolness of the blue glass, like.solid pieces of the sea. To chip the gigantic jewels for the.crown so they would sparkle and send out shafts of light..To forget everything but the glass before me and make of it.something resplendent..When I could trust my voice not to show too much.eagerness, I said, “I see your originality is in good health..Only you would put peacocks in a chapel.”.“Don’t you know?” he said in a spoof of incredulity..“They symbolized eternal life in Byzantine art. Their flesh.was thought to be incorruptible.”.“What a lucky find for you, that convenient tidbit of.information.”.He chuckled, so I was on safe ground..He tossed down more drawings. “A marble-and-mosaic.altar surrounded by mosaic columns, and a baptismal font.of opaque leaded glass and mosaic.”.“This dome is the lid of the basin? In opaque leaded.glass?”.He looked at it with nothing short of love, and showed.me its size with outstretched arms as though he were.hugging the thing..I was struck by a tantalizing idea. “Imagine it reduced in.size and made of translucent glass instead. Once you figure.how to secure the pieces in a dome, that could be the.method and the shape of a lampshade. A wraparound.window of, say”—I looked around the room—“peacock.feathers.”.He jerked his head up with a startled expression, the.idea dawning on him as if it were his own..“Lampshades in leaded glass,” he said in wonder, his.blue eyes sparking..“Just think where that could go,” I whispered.
Q: The narrator indicates that Tiffany informs her ofhis new projects by
Choices:
A.) displaying a chart that shows the placement of the artworks he plans to exhibit in Chicago.
B.) presenting several finished stained glass windows and describing them in detail.
C.) asking her opinion of the watercolor paintings he plans to exhibit in Chicago.
D.) showing a series of plans for stained glass windows he intends to construct.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: “I’ve come to inquire if you have work for me. That is, if.my performance pleased you before.” A deliberate prompt. I.didn’t want to be hired because of my need or his kindness. I.wanted my talent to be the reason he wanted me back..“Indeed” was all he offered..What now to fill the suspended moment? His new.projects. I asked. His eyebrows leapt up in symmetrical.curves..“A Byzantine chapel for the World’s Columbian.Exposition in Chicago next year. Four times bigger than the.Paris Exposition Universelle. It will be the greatest assembly.of artists since the fifteenth century.” He counted on his.fingers and then drummed them on the desk. “Only fifteen.months away. In 1893 the name of Louis Comfort Tiffany.will be on the lips of millions!” He stood up and swung open.his arms wide enough to embrace the whole world..I sensed his open palm somewhere in the air behind the.small of my back, ushering me to his massive, carved.mahogany exhibit table to see his sketches and watercolors..“Two round windows, The Infancy of Christ and Botticelli’s.Madonna and Child, will be set off by a dozen scenic side.windows.”.A huge undertaking. How richly fortunate. Surely there.would be opportunity for me to shine..Practically hopping from side to side, he made a show of.slinging down one large watercolor after another onto the.Persian carpet, each one a precise, fine-edged rendering of.what he wanted the window to be..“Gracious! You’ve been on fire. Go slower! Give me a.chance to admire each one.”.He unrolled the largest watercolor. “An eight-foot.mosaic behind the altar depicting a pair of peacocks.surrounded by grapevines.”.My breath whistled between my open lips. Above the.peacocks facing each other, he had transformed the.standard Christian icon of a crown of thorns into a.shimmering regal headdress for God the King, the thorns.replaced by large glass jewels in true Tiffany style..Astonishing how he could get mere watercolors so deep.and saturated, so like lacquer that they vibrated together as.surely as chords of a great church pipe organ. Even the.names of the hues bore an exotic richness. The peacocks’.necks in emerald green and sapphire blue. The tail feathers.in vermilion, Spanish ocher, Florida gold. The jewels in the.crown mandarin yellow and peridot. The background in.turquoise and cobalt. Oh, to get my hands on those.gorgeous hues. To feel the coolness of the blue glass, like.solid pieces of the sea. To chip the gigantic jewels for the.crown so they would sparkle and send out shafts of light..To forget everything but the glass before me and make of it.something resplendent..When I could trust my voice not to show too much.eagerness, I said, “I see your originality is in good health..Only you would put peacocks in a chapel.”.“Don’t you know?” he said in a spoof of incredulity..“They symbolized eternal life in Byzantine art. Their flesh.was thought to be incorruptible.”.“What a lucky find for you, that convenient tidbit of.information.”.He chuckled, so I was on safe ground..He tossed down more drawings. “A marble-and-mosaic.altar surrounded by mosaic columns, and a baptismal font.of opaque leaded glass and mosaic.”.“This dome is the lid of the basin? In opaque leaded.glass?”.He looked at it with nothing short of love, and showed.me its size with outstretched arms as though he were.hugging the thing..I was struck by a tantalizing idea. “Imagine it reduced in.size and made of translucent glass instead. Once you figure.how to secure the pieces in a dome, that could be the.method and the shape of a lampshade. A wraparound.window of, say”—I looked around the room—“peacock.feathers.”.He jerked his head up with a startled expression, the.idea dawning on him as if it were his own..“Lampshades in leaded glass,” he said in wonder, his.blue eyes sparking..“Just think where that could go,” I whispered.
Q: It can most reasonably be inferred from the passagethat the narrator’s talents include an ability to
Choices:
A.) create detailed sketches on which larger artworks are based.
B.) enhance an existing idea by improvising technical innovations for artworks.
C.) provide authoritative critiques of classical artworks.
D.) devise imaginative names for the colors of the glass she works with.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: A pair of recent studies suggests that although.industrialized nations may have benefitted from larger.cities, the same is not true for the rapidly urbanizing areas of.the developing world. In these parts of the globe, there really.might be such a thing as too much urbanization, too.quickly..The studies, by Susanne A. Frick and Andrés Rodríguez-.Pose of the London School of Economics, take a close look.at the actual connection between city size and nationwide.economic performance. Their initial study, from last year,.examines the relationship between economic development,.as measured by GDP per capita, and average metropolitan-.area size in 114 countries across the world between 1960.and 2010. To ensure robustness, it controls for variables.including national population size, physical land area,.education levels, economic openness, and other factors..The size of cities or metro areas across the world has.exploded over the past half-century, with cities in the.developing world growing much faster and much larger.than those in more developed nations. Between 1960 and 2010, the median city in high-income countries grew.modestly from 500,000 to 650,000 people; but the median.city in the developing world nearly quadrupled, expanding.from 220,000 to 845,000 people. In 1960, 12 of the top 20.countries with the largest average city size were high-.income countries; by 2010, 14 of the top 20 were in the.developing world..Urbanization has historically been thought of as a.necessary feature of economic development and growth, but.this study finds the connection is not so simple. While.advanced nations benefit from having larger cities,.developing nations do not. Advanced nations experience a 0.7 percent increase in economic growth for every.additional 100,000 in average population among its large.cities over a five-year period. But for developing nations, the.addition of 100,000 people in large cities is associated with a 2.3 percent decrease in economic growth over a five-year.period..In their latest study, the researchers found that.developing nations tend to get a bigger bang for their buck.from smaller and medium-size cities. These countries see.the most economic benefit from having a larger proportion.of their urban population living in cities of 500,000 people.or less. Bigger cities tend to have a more positive economic.impact in larger countries. Having a metro with more than 10 million inhabitants produces a nationwide economic.benefit only if the total urban population is 28.5 million.or more, according to the study. This makes sense:.Bigger, more developed countries are more likely to play.host to knowledge-based industries that require urban.agglomeration economies..There are several reasons why megacities^1 often fail to.spur significant growth in the rapidly urbanizing world..For one, the lion’s share of places that are urbanizing.most rapidly today are in the poorest and least-.developed parts of the world, whereas the places that.urbanized a century or so ago were in the richest and.most developed. This history has created a false.expectation that urbanization is always associated with.prosperity..Additionally, globalization has severed the historical.connection between cities, local agriculture, and local.industry that powered the more balanced urban.economic development of the past. In today’s globally.interconnected economy, the raw materials that flowed.from the surrounding countryside to the city can all be.inexpensively imported from other parts of the world..The result is that the connection between large cities and.growth has now become much more tenuous, producing.a troubling new pattern of “urbanization without.growth.”.The researchers used multiple variables to calculate a weighted average.city size for each country studied and reported the median of those.averages..(^1) Typically defined as cities with populations of over ten million people
Q: The main purpose of the passage is to
Choices:
A.) propose a new solution to an ongoing problem.
B.) question whether recent research has practical applications.
C.) describe the causes and consequences of a phenomenon.
D.) critique the methodology used to arrive at new findings.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: A pair of recent studies suggests that although.industrialized nations may have benefitted from larger.cities, the same is not true for the rapidly urbanizing areas of.the developing world. In these parts of the globe, there really.might be such a thing as too much urbanization, too.quickly..The studies, by Susanne A. Frick and Andrés Rodríguez-.Pose of the London School of Economics, take a close look.at the actual connection between city size and nationwide.economic performance. Their initial study, from last year,.examines the relationship between economic development,.as measured by GDP per capita, and average metropolitan-.area size in 114 countries across the world between 1960.and 2010. To ensure robustness, it controls for variables.including national population size, physical land area,.education levels, economic openness, and other factors..The size of cities or metro areas across the world has.exploded over the past half-century, with cities in the.developing world growing much faster and much larger.than those in more developed nations. Between 1960 and 2010, the median city in high-income countries grew.modestly from 500,000 to 650,000 people; but the median.city in the developing world nearly quadrupled, expanding.from 220,000 to 845,000 people. In 1960, 12 of the top 20.countries with the largest average city size were high-.income countries; by 2010, 14 of the top 20 were in the.developing world..Urbanization has historically been thought of as a.necessary feature of economic development and growth, but.this study finds the connection is not so simple. While.advanced nations benefit from having larger cities,.developing nations do not. Advanced nations experience a 0.7 percent increase in economic growth for every.additional 100,000 in average population among its large.cities over a five-year period. But for developing nations, the.addition of 100,000 people in large cities is associated with a 2.3 percent decrease in economic growth over a five-year.period..In their latest study, the researchers found that.developing nations tend to get a bigger bang for their buck.from smaller and medium-size cities. These countries see.the most economic benefit from having a larger proportion.of their urban population living in cities of 500,000 people.or less. Bigger cities tend to have a more positive economic.impact in larger countries. Having a metro with more than 10 million inhabitants produces a nationwide economic.benefit only if the total urban population is 28.5 million.or more, according to the study. This makes sense:.Bigger, more developed countries are more likely to play.host to knowledge-based industries that require urban.agglomeration economies..There are several reasons why megacities^1 often fail to.spur significant growth in the rapidly urbanizing world..For one, the lion’s share of places that are urbanizing.most rapidly today are in the poorest and least-.developed parts of the world, whereas the places that.urbanized a century or so ago were in the richest and.most developed. This history has created a false.expectation that urbanization is always associated with.prosperity..Additionally, globalization has severed the historical.connection between cities, local agriculture, and local.industry that powered the more balanced urban.economic development of the past. In today’s globally.interconnected economy, the raw materials that flowed.from the surrounding countryside to the city can all be.inexpensively imported from other parts of the world..The result is that the connection between large cities and.growth has now become much more tenuous, producing.a troubling new pattern of “urbanization without.growth.”.The researchers used multiple variables to calculate a weighted average.city size for each country studied and reported the median of those.averages..(^1) Typically defined as cities with populations of over ten million people
Q: Based on the passage, which choice best describesthe relationship between Frick and Rodríguez-Pose’sfirst and second studies?
Choices:
A.) The second study offers a more negative interpretation of a recent event than the first study does.
B.) The second study builds on the first study’s findings.
C.) The second study confirms a hypothesis that they were unable to confirm in the first study.
D.) The second study corrects a minor error in the research of the first study.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: A pair of recent studies suggests that although.industrialized nations may have benefitted from larger.cities, the same is not true for the rapidly urbanizing areas of.the developing world. In these parts of the globe, there really.might be such a thing as too much urbanization, too.quickly..The studies, by Susanne A. Frick and Andrés Rodríguez-.Pose of the London School of Economics, take a close look.at the actual connection between city size and nationwide.economic performance. Their initial study, from last year,.examines the relationship between economic development,.as measured by GDP per capita, and average metropolitan-.area size in 114 countries across the world between 1960.and 2010. To ensure robustness, it controls for variables.including national population size, physical land area,.education levels, economic openness, and other factors..The size of cities or metro areas across the world has.exploded over the past half-century, with cities in the.developing world growing much faster and much larger.than those in more developed nations. Between 1960 and 2010, the median city in high-income countries grew.modestly from 500,000 to 650,000 people; but the median.city in the developing world nearly quadrupled, expanding.from 220,000 to 845,000 people. In 1960, 12 of the top 20.countries with the largest average city size were high-.income countries; by 2010, 14 of the top 20 were in the.developing world..Urbanization has historically been thought of as a.necessary feature of economic development and growth, but.this study finds the connection is not so simple. While.advanced nations benefit from having larger cities,.developing nations do not. Advanced nations experience a 0.7 percent increase in economic growth for every.additional 100,000 in average population among its large.cities over a five-year period. But for developing nations, the.addition of 100,000 people in large cities is associated with a 2.3 percent decrease in economic growth over a five-year.period..In their latest study, the researchers found that.developing nations tend to get a bigger bang for their buck.from smaller and medium-size cities. These countries see.the most economic benefit from having a larger proportion.of their urban population living in cities of 500,000 people.or less. Bigger cities tend to have a more positive economic.impact in larger countries. Having a metro with more than 10 million inhabitants produces a nationwide economic.benefit only if the total urban population is 28.5 million.or more, according to the study. This makes sense:.Bigger, more developed countries are more likely to play.host to knowledge-based industries that require urban.agglomeration economies..There are several reasons why megacities^1 often fail to.spur significant growth in the rapidly urbanizing world..For one, the lion’s share of places that are urbanizing.most rapidly today are in the poorest and least-.developed parts of the world, whereas the places that.urbanized a century or so ago were in the richest and.most developed. This history has created a false.expectation that urbanization is always associated with.prosperity..Additionally, globalization has severed the historical.connection between cities, local agriculture, and local.industry that powered the more balanced urban.economic development of the past. In today’s globally.interconnected economy, the raw materials that flowed.from the surrounding countryside to the city can all be.inexpensively imported from other parts of the world..The result is that the connection between large cities and.growth has now become much more tenuous, producing.a troubling new pattern of “urbanization without.growth.”.The researchers used multiple variables to calculate a weighted average.city size for each country studied and reported the median of those.averages..(^1) Typically defined as cities with populations of over ten million people
Q: It can most reasonably be inferred from the passagethat a megacity’s economic impact on a country is
Choices:
A.) greater in countries with larger physical land areas.
B.) relatively equal for developing countries and high-income countries.
C.) neutralized by the economic cost of maintaining a megacity.
D.) dependent on the types of companies located in the megacity.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: A pair of recent studies suggests that although.industrialized nations may have benefitted from larger.cities, the same is not true for the rapidly urbanizing areas of.the developing world. In these parts of the globe, there really.might be such a thing as too much urbanization, too.quickly..The studies, by Susanne A. Frick and Andrés Rodríguez-.Pose of the London School of Economics, take a close look.at the actual connection between city size and nationwide.economic performance. Their initial study, from last year,.examines the relationship between economic development,.as measured by GDP per capita, and average metropolitan-.area size in 114 countries across the world between 1960.and 2010. To ensure robustness, it controls for variables.including national population size, physical land area,.education levels, economic openness, and other factors..The size of cities or metro areas across the world has.exploded over the past half-century, with cities in the.developing world growing much faster and much larger.than those in more developed nations. Between 1960 and 2010, the median city in high-income countries grew.modestly from 500,000 to 650,000 people; but the median.city in the developing world nearly quadrupled, expanding.from 220,000 to 845,000 people. In 1960, 12 of the top 20.countries with the largest average city size were high-.income countries; by 2010, 14 of the top 20 were in the.developing world..Urbanization has historically been thought of as a.necessary feature of economic development and growth, but.this study finds the connection is not so simple. While.advanced nations benefit from having larger cities,.developing nations do not. Advanced nations experience a 0.7 percent increase in economic growth for every.additional 100,000 in average population among its large.cities over a five-year period. But for developing nations, the.addition of 100,000 people in large cities is associated with a 2.3 percent decrease in economic growth over a five-year.period..In their latest study, the researchers found that.developing nations tend to get a bigger bang for their buck.from smaller and medium-size cities. These countries see.the most economic benefit from having a larger proportion.of their urban population living in cities of 500,000 people.or less. Bigger cities tend to have a more positive economic.impact in larger countries. Having a metro with more than 10 million inhabitants produces a nationwide economic.benefit only if the total urban population is 28.5 million.or more, according to the study. This makes sense:.Bigger, more developed countries are more likely to play.host to knowledge-based industries that require urban.agglomeration economies..There are several reasons why megacities^1 often fail to.spur significant growth in the rapidly urbanizing world..For one, the lion’s share of places that are urbanizing.most rapidly today are in the poorest and least-.developed parts of the world, whereas the places that.urbanized a century or so ago were in the richest and.most developed. This history has created a false.expectation that urbanization is always associated with.prosperity..Additionally, globalization has severed the historical.connection between cities, local agriculture, and local.industry that powered the more balanced urban.economic development of the past. In today’s globally.interconnected economy, the raw materials that flowed.from the surrounding countryside to the city can all be.inexpensively imported from other parts of the world..The result is that the connection between large cities and.growth has now become much more tenuous, producing.a troubling new pattern of “urbanization without.growth.”.The researchers used multiple variables to calculate a weighted average.city size for each country studied and reported the median of those.averages..(^1) Typically defined as cities with populations of over ten million people
Q: According to the graph, during what range of yearsdid the median city population size in developingcountries initially surpass that of high-incomecountries?
Choices:
A.) 2005–2010
B.) 1965–1970
C.) 1990–1995
D.) 1980–1985
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: A pair of recent studies suggests that although.industrialized nations may have benefitted from larger.cities, the same is not true for the rapidly urbanizing areas of.the developing world. In these parts of the globe, there really.might be such a thing as too much urbanization, too.quickly..The studies, by Susanne A. Frick and Andrés Rodríguez-.Pose of the London School of Economics, take a close look.at the actual connection between city size and nationwide.economic performance. Their initial study, from last year,.examines the relationship between economic development,.as measured by GDP per capita, and average metropolitan-.area size in 114 countries across the world between 1960.and 2010. To ensure robustness, it controls for variables.including national population size, physical land area,.education levels, economic openness, and other factors..The size of cities or metro areas across the world has.exploded over the past half-century, with cities in the.developing world growing much faster and much larger.than those in more developed nations. Between 1960 and 2010, the median city in high-income countries grew.modestly from 500,000 to 650,000 people; but the median.city in the developing world nearly quadrupled, expanding.from 220,000 to 845,000 people. In 1960, 12 of the top 20.countries with the largest average city size were high-.income countries; by 2010, 14 of the top 20 were in the.developing world..Urbanization has historically been thought of as a.necessary feature of economic development and growth, but.this study finds the connection is not so simple. While.advanced nations benefit from having larger cities,.developing nations do not. Advanced nations experience a 0.7 percent increase in economic growth for every.additional 100,000 in average population among its large.cities over a five-year period. But for developing nations, the.addition of 100,000 people in large cities is associated with a 2.3 percent decrease in economic growth over a five-year.period..In their latest study, the researchers found that.developing nations tend to get a bigger bang for their buck.from smaller and medium-size cities. These countries see.the most economic benefit from having a larger proportion.of their urban population living in cities of 500,000 people.or less. Bigger cities tend to have a more positive economic.impact in larger countries. Having a metro with more than 10 million inhabitants produces a nationwide economic.benefit only if the total urban population is 28.5 million.or more, according to the study. This makes sense:.Bigger, more developed countries are more likely to play.host to knowledge-based industries that require urban.agglomeration economies..There are several reasons why megacities^1 often fail to.spur significant growth in the rapidly urbanizing world..For one, the lion’s share of places that are urbanizing.most rapidly today are in the poorest and least-.developed parts of the world, whereas the places that.urbanized a century or so ago were in the richest and.most developed. This history has created a false.expectation that urbanization is always associated with.prosperity..Additionally, globalization has severed the historical.connection between cities, local agriculture, and local.industry that powered the more balanced urban.economic development of the past. In today’s globally.interconnected economy, the raw materials that flowed.from the surrounding countryside to the city can all be.inexpensively imported from other parts of the world..The result is that the connection between large cities and.growth has now become much more tenuous, producing.a troubling new pattern of “urbanization without.growth.”.The researchers used multiple variables to calculate a weighted average.city size for each country studied and reported the median of those.averages..(^1) Typically defined as cities with populations of over ten million people
Q: Which claim from the passage is best supported bythe graph?
Choices:
A.) Developing countries benefit from having more of the urban population living in smaller and medium-sized cities.
B.) In 1960, more than half of the countries with the largest average city size were high-income countries.
C.) The addition of 100,000 people in a large city causes an increase in economic growth in high-income countries but causes a decrease in economic growth in developing countries.
D.) The median population of cities in developing countries grew more sharply from 1960 to 2010 than did that of cities in high-income countries.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage 1.The brains of humans are conspicuously larger than the.brains of other apes, but the human-specific genetic.factors responsible for the uniquely large human.neocortex remain obscure. Since humans split from.chimps, which have brains roughly a third of human size,.the human genome has undergone roughly 15 million.changes. Which of these genetic tweaks could have led to.big brains?.About six years ago, scientists in David Haussler’s lab at.Howard Hughes Medical Institute discovered a gene called.NOTCH2NL. It’s a relative of NOTCH2, a gene that.scientists knew was central to early brain development..NOTCH2 controls vital decisions regarding when and how.many neurons to make..When the Haussler team looked in the official version.of the human genome at that time^1 —version 37—.NOTCH2NL appeared to be located in chromosome 1.near a region linked to abnormal brain size. Delete a hunk.of the region, and brains tend to shrink. Duplicate part of.it, and brains tend to overgrow..“We thought, ‘Oh, this is incredible,’” Haussler said..NOTCH2NL seemed to check all the boxes for a key role.in human brain development. But when the team mapped.NOTCH2NL’s precise location in the genome, they.discovered the gene wasn’t actually in the relevant.chromosomal region after all; the once-promising.candidate seemed to be a dud..“We were downhearted,” Haussler recalled. That all.changed with the next official version of the human.genome—version 38. In this iteration, NOTCH2NL was.located in the crucial region. “And there were three.versions of it,” Haussler exclaimed. Over the last three.million years, his team calculated, NOTCH2NL was.repeatedly copy-pasted into the genome, what he calls “a.series of genetic accidents.”.Genetic analysis of several primate species revealed that.the three genes exist only in humans and their recent.relatives, the Neanderthals and Denisovans, not in.chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans. What’s more, the.timing of these genes’ emergence matches up with the.period in the fossil record when our ancestors’ craniums.began to enlarge, Haussler points out. Together, the results.suggest that NOTCH2NL genes played a role in beefing.up human brain size..Passage 2.Modern humans have brains that are more than three.times larger than our closest living relatives,.chimpanzees and bonobos. Scientists don’t agree on.when and how this dramatic increase took place, but.new analysis of 94 hominin fossils shows that average.brain size increased gradually and consistently over the.past three million years..The research, published in The Proceedings of the.Royal Society B, shows that the trend was caused.primarily by evolution of larger brains within.populations of individual species, but the introduction of.new, larger-brained species and extinction of smaller-.brained ones also played a part..“Brain size is one of the most obvious traits that.makes us human. It’s related to cultural complexity,.language, tool making and all these other things that.make us unique,” said Andrew Du, PhD, a postdoctoral.scholar at the University of Chicago and first author of.the study. “The earliest hominins had brain sizes like.chimpanzees, and they have increased dramatically since.then. So, it’s important to understand how we got here.”.Du and his colleagues compared published research.data on the skull volumes of 94 fossil specimens from 13.different species, beginning with the earliest.unambiguous human ancestors, Australopithecus, from 3.2 million years ago to pre-modern species, including.Homo erectus, from 500,000 years ago when brain size.began to overlap with that of modern-day humans..The researchers saw that when the species were.counted at the clade level, or groups descending from a.common ancestor, the average brain size increased.gradually over three million years. Looking more closely,.the increase was driven by three different factors,.primarily evolution of larger brain sizes within.individual species populations, but also by the addition.of new, larger-brained species and extinction of smaller-.brained ones..The study quantifies for the first time when and by.how much each of these factors contributes to the clade-.level pattern. Du said he likens it to how a football coach.might build a roster of bigger, strong players. One way.would be to make all the players hit the weight room to.bulk up. But the coach could also recruit new, larger.players and cut the smallest ones..(^1) The reference version of the human genome goes through updates to.more completely map out each chromosomal sequence.
Q: What does Passage 1 indicate is true of the human genome?
Choices:
A.) It has gone through a large number of changes over time.
B.) It retains only a few of the genes that were present in the genomes of Denisovans.
C.) It has nearly tripled in size in the last few million years.
D.) It contains many more genes than do the genomes of nonhuman primates.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Passage: Passage 1.The brains of humans are conspicuously larger than the.brains of other apes, but the human-specific genetic.factors responsible for the uniquely large human.neocortex remain obscure. Since humans split from.chimps, which have brains roughly a third of human size,.the human genome has undergone roughly 15 million.changes. Which of these genetic tweaks could have led to.big brains?.About six years ago, scientists in David Haussler’s lab at.Howard Hughes Medical Institute discovered a gene called.NOTCH2NL. It’s a relative of NOTCH2, a gene that.scientists knew was central to early brain development..NOTCH2 controls vital decisions regarding when and how.many neurons to make..When the Haussler team looked in the official version.of the human genome at that time^1 —version 37—.NOTCH2NL appeared to be located in chromosome 1.near a region linked to abnormal brain size. Delete a hunk.of the region, and brains tend to shrink. Duplicate part of.it, and brains tend to overgrow..“We thought, ‘Oh, this is incredible,’” Haussler said..NOTCH2NL seemed to check all the boxes for a key role.in human brain development. But when the team mapped.NOTCH2NL’s precise location in the genome, they.discovered the gene wasn’t actually in the relevant.chromosomal region after all; the once-promising.candidate seemed to be a dud..“We were downhearted,” Haussler recalled. That all.changed with the next official version of the human.genome—version 38. In this iteration, NOTCH2NL was.located in the crucial region. “And there were three.versions of it,” Haussler exclaimed. Over the last three.million years, his team calculated, NOTCH2NL was.repeatedly copy-pasted into the genome, what he calls “a.series of genetic accidents.”.Genetic analysis of several primate species revealed that.the three genes exist only in humans and their recent.relatives, the Neanderthals and Denisovans, not in.chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans. What’s more, the.timing of these genes’ emergence matches up with the.period in the fossil record when our ancestors’ craniums.began to enlarge, Haussler points out. Together, the results.suggest that NOTCH2NL genes played a role in beefing.up human brain size..Passage 2.Modern humans have brains that are more than three.times larger than our closest living relatives,.chimpanzees and bonobos. Scientists don’t agree on.when and how this dramatic increase took place, but.new analysis of 94 hominin fossils shows that average.brain size increased gradually and consistently over the.past three million years..The research, published in The Proceedings of the.Royal Society B, shows that the trend was caused.primarily by evolution of larger brains within.populations of individual species, but the introduction of.new, larger-brained species and extinction of smaller-.brained ones also played a part..“Brain size is one of the most obvious traits that.makes us human. It’s related to cultural complexity,.language, tool making and all these other things that.make us unique,” said Andrew Du, PhD, a postdoctoral.scholar at the University of Chicago and first author of.the study. “The earliest hominins had brain sizes like.chimpanzees, and they have increased dramatically since.then. So, it’s important to understand how we got here.”.Du and his colleagues compared published research.data on the skull volumes of 94 fossil specimens from 13.different species, beginning with the earliest.unambiguous human ancestors, Australopithecus, from 3.2 million years ago to pre-modern species, including.Homo erectus, from 500,000 years ago when brain size.began to overlap with that of modern-day humans..The researchers saw that when the species were.counted at the clade level, or groups descending from a.common ancestor, the average brain size increased.gradually over three million years. Looking more closely,.the increase was driven by three different factors,.primarily evolution of larger brain sizes within.individual species populations, but also by the addition.of new, larger-brained species and extinction of smaller-.brained ones..The study quantifies for the first time when and by.how much each of these factors contributes to the clade-.level pattern. Du said he likens it to how a football coach.might build a roster of bigger, strong players. One way.would be to make all the players hit the weight room to.bulk up. But the coach could also recruit new, larger.players and cut the smallest ones..(^1) The reference version of the human genome goes through updates to.more completely map out each chromosomal sequence.
Q: Based on Passage 1, what concept most likely contributed to Haussler’s team’s initial interest in NOTCH2NL?
Choices:
A.) Genes that are near one another in a genome usually are duplicated at about the same rate.
B.) A single gene typically has varying functions depending on where it is located in a genome.
C.) Genes that are related to one another tend to have comparable biological roles in development.
D.) Similar genes often play different roles in the development of different species.
Answer:

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D