TABE Reading Practice Test – 1

0%

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. According to the author, what is most responsible for influencing our perception of a comparison between species?

Correct! Wrong!

The author opens by explaining how “the world can be classified in different ways” (line 1) and states that “the classifications . . . determine which comparisons seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analogical” (lines 3-6). The passage then shows how comparisons differ according to which system of classification is used.

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. Which of the following is NOT possible within an Aristotelian classification scheme?

Correct! Wrong!

The Aristotelian classification scheme is hierarchical, with only three possible classifications: 1) vegetative only; 2) vegetative plus sensory only; 3) vegetative plus sensory plus rational. Accordingly, species possessing a rational soul must possess a sensory soul because they are a subset of the group possessing a sensory soul.

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. Which of the following comparisons would be "legitimate" for all living organisms according to the Aristotelian scheme described in paragraph two? I. Comparisons based on the vegetative soul II. Comparisons based on the sensory soul III. Comparisons based on the rational soul

Correct! Wrong!

The Aristotelian scheme classifies species according to a hierarchy with all species included in the bottom layer (possessing a vegetative soul), some from the bottom layer included in the middle layer (also possessing a sensory soul), and some from the middle layer included in the top layer (also possessing a rational soul). Comparisons are only legitimate regarding soul types the species have in common (lines 26-34); comparisons between species regarding a type of soul found only in one are “merely analogical” (lines 33-34). Since all living organisms have a vegetative soul, comparisons on the basis of this attribute are always legitimate. However, since only some living organisms have a sensory soul, and only species at the top of the hierarchy have a rational soul, comparisons with respect to these attributes cannot be legitimately made among all living creatures.

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. If the author had wished to explain why "most" people (line 40) feel the way they do, the explanation would have probably focused on the

Correct! Wrong!

Through exaggeration and sarcasm, the author ridicules people's need for greater distinction. The author suggests that this need stems from defensiveness and insecurity: "it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to how we explain certain qualities." (lines 41-45). The author then implies that whether a capability is classified as strictly human depends on how it is defined, thus making the classification subject to opinion and bias: "even if 'language' is so defined that the waggle dance slips in" (lines 53-54).

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. The author uses the words "For some reason" in lines 40-41 to express

Correct! Wrong!

The author indicates that when referring to the uniqueness of Homo sapiens, the general uniqueness of all species "is not enough for many (probably most) people" (lines 39-40). This exaggeration and subsequent examples are used to ridicule the need people have to define Homo sapiens as "uniquely unique" (line 42). The examples of how human beings distinguish themselves from other species are likewise sarcastic and disapproving: "No matter how ingenious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as 'tool use'" (lines 56-59).

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. Which best summarizes the idea of "uniquely unique" (line 42)?

Correct! Wrong!

The subsequent text explains that each species is unique in accordance with its separate and distinct position in the classification schemes. However, many humans see Homo sapiens as also being distinguished for reasons existing outside the classification systems. The text provides examples of how certain abilities are not considered shared by any other species and are thus distinctly human: “For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees not count as a genuine language” (lines 47-49) and “No matter how ingenious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as ‘tool use’” (lines 56-59).

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. In line 44, "insulated from" means

Correct! Wrong!

"Segregated from" means separated from or kept distinct from. The surrounding text discusses how human beings want to distinguish their species on grounds outside of the classification systems by which every species is considered unique. Examples are used to illustrate how people try to characterize certain abilities of Homo sapiens as not shared by any other species and thus, "uniquely unique" (line 42): "For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees not count as a genuine language" (lines 47-49). The example of the definition of tools to exclude use by other species is offered in the same light. Thus, the author emphasizes people's need to be "segregated from" other species.

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. In the third paragraph, the author criticizes those who believe that

Correct! Wrong!

Through exaggeration and sarcasm, the author indicates that attempts to distinguish Homo sapiens from animals on the basis of certain abilities not related to the classification schemes are ridiculous, subjective, and futile: “little is gained” (line 52). It is those who insist that Homo sapiens and animals be seen as separate who are the subjects of the author's criticism.

Which word has a vowel sound that is long?

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
Because it expresses a long vowel sound that would sound like "ay," answer choice (A) is correct. None of the other choices are particularly long; they are all different renditions of the vowel sound "a."

Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. Read the cited passage in the article. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. What exactly are bogs, according to the context of the article?

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
Venus flytraps reside close to damp, marshy places, which means they live close to "swamps," hence answer choice (B) is accurate. Despite the fact that forests may be close to water sources, answer choices (A) and (C) are not regarded as "wet places". Although it may be tempting, answer choice (D) is incorrect. While beaches are frequently "wet," they are not "marshland."

Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. What is the article's main objective?

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
The article begins by introducing a special plant before going on to discuss the Venus flytrap, therefore answer option (D) is accurate. Although it may be tempting, the author only discusses one type of plant in response option (C). The article (A) makes no mention of these plants being endangered or urging readers to travel to the Carolinas (B).

Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. What is one of the Venus flytrap's primary characteristics that makes it rare, according to the article?

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
Because the author notes that it is uncommon to come across a carnivorous plant and that most plants obtain their nutrition from photosynthesis, answer choice (B) is accurate (sunlight and water are their food). This limits the options for responses (A). The article does not support the answers (C) and (D).

Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. The "mouth" around the plant's prey snaps shut when pressure is given to these hairs. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. Read the passage from the article. The "mouth" around the plant's prey snaps shut when pressure is given to these hairs. What does the word "prey" most nearly mean in this sentence?

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
The term "prey" refers to insects that fall into the flytrap's mouth because the author describes how the flytrap consumes insects throughout the article. The word "prey" does not refer to this way of "hunting," despite the fact that the sentence describes it.

"Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. How does the Venus flytrap determine when to close its "mouth" around an insect, according to the article?"

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
The article discusses how these "hairs" can distinguish between insects and larger items like dust and dirt, so answer choice (A) is correct. Nothing in the article supports any of the alternative choices.

Which word has the vowel I pronounced long?

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
Choice D is the right answer. A long vowel sounds like its letter when spoken. Therefore, a long I would make an eye sound. "Bite" is the only word having an eye sound among the response options.

Which word has the short o vowel sound?

Correct! Wrong!

Explanation:
Choice (A) is the right response. A short vowel does not sound like its letter when it is spoken. So an o that does not produce an oh sound would be considered short. "Sock" is the only word in the answer options with an o that doesn't sound like an oh (A).

Related Post