SAT Section 2 - Group 2 | Attempts: 1209 - Quiz, Trivia & Questions

1.

Some fans feel that sports events are ------- only when the competitors are of equal ability, making the outcome of the game -------.

A.

Successful . . assured
B.

Boring . . questionable
C.

Dull . . foreseen
D.

Interesting . . predictable
E.

Exciting . . uncertain

Correct Answer
E. Exciting . . uncertain

Explanation
Some fans feel that sports events are exciting only when the competitors are of equal ability, making the outcome of the game uncertain.

Rate this question:

2.

Alfred Schnittke’s musical compositions are -------: phrases are clipped, broken into sections, and split apart by long rests.

A.

Garnished
B.

Improvisational
C.

Fragmented
D.

Cautious
E.

Uniform

Correct Answer
C. Fragmented

Explanation
Alfred Schnittke's musical compositions are fragmented because they consist of phrases that are clipped, broken into sections, and split apart by long rests. This means that the music is not continuous or flowing smoothly, but rather composed of disjointed and disconnected elements.

Rate this question:

3.

The consumer advocate claimed that while drug manufacturers ------- the supposed advantages of their proprietary brands, generic versions of the same medications are often equally -------.

A.

Tout . . efficacious
B.

Research . . innocuous
C.

Market . . prohibitive
D.

Laud . . counterproductive
E.

Extract . . prescriptive

Correct Answer
A. Tout . . efficacious

Explanation
The consumer advocate claimed that while drug manufacturers "tout" the supposed advantages of their proprietary brands, generic versions of the same medications are often equally "efficacious". This means that the drug manufacturers promote and emphasize the supposed benefits of their brands, while the advocate argues that generic versions of the medications are just as effective.

Rate this question:

4.

Latoya’s ------- is shown by her ability to be -------: she can see her own faults more clearly than anyone else can.

A.

Perceptiveness . . self-centered
B.

Objectivity . . restrictive
C.

Cynicism . . self-destructive
D.

Open-mindedness . . complacent
E.

Insightfulness . . self-critical

Correct Answer
E. Insightfulness . . self-critical

Explanation
Latoya's insightfulness is demonstrated by her ability to be self-critical. This means that she has a deep understanding and perception of herself and is able to objectively evaluate her own faults and shortcomings. She is not afraid to acknowledge and address her own mistakes, which shows a high level of self-awareness and introspection.

Rate this question:

5.

The bearded dragon lizard is a voracious eater, so ------- that it will consume as many insects as possible.

A.

Abstemious
B.

Cannibalistic
C.

Slovenly
D.

Insatiable
E.

Unpalatable

Correct Answer
D. Insatiable

Explanation
The word "insatiable" means having an unquenchable desire or appetite. In the context of the sentence, it suggests that the bearded dragon lizard is a voracious eater and will consume as many insects as possible without ever feeling satisfied. This choice accurately describes the lizard's behavior and aligns with the information given in the sentence.

Rate this question:

1

0

6.

Because drummer Tony Williams paved the way for later jazz-fusion musicians, he is considered a ------- of that style.

A.

Connoisseur
B.

Revivalist
C.

Beneficiary
D.

Disparager
E.

Progenitor

Correct Answer
E. Progenitor

Explanation
The correct answer is "progenitor." In this context, a progenitor refers to someone who is considered the originator or pioneer of a particular style or movement. Tony Williams is recognized as a progenitor of jazz-fusion because he played a significant role in developing and popularizing the genre.

Rate this question:

7.

The politician’s speech to the crowd was composed of nothing but -------, a bitter railing against the party’s opponents.

A.

Digressions
B.

Diatribes
C.

Platitudes
D.

Machinations
E.

Acclamations

Correct Answer
B. Diatribes

Explanation
The correct answer is "diatribes." In the given sentence, the politician's speech is described as "a bitter railing against the party's opponents." A diatribe refers to a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing, often criticizing someone or something. Therefore, "diatribes" is the most fitting word to complete the sentence and convey the intended meaning.

Rate this question:

8.

Favoring economy of expression in writing, the professor urged students toward a ------- rather than an ------- prose style.

A.

Spare . . ornate
B.

Terse . . opinionated
C.

Personal . . academic
D.

Baroque . . embellished
E.

Repetitive . . intricate

Correct Answer
A. Spare . . ornate

Explanation
The professor encourages students to use a spare prose style instead of an ornate one. This means that the professor is suggesting that students should write in a concise and straightforward manner, avoiding unnecessary embellishments or excessive detail.

Rate this question:

9.

Read the passages below and answer question 9 - 12 Passage 1 Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) (line 5) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything. However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and (line 10) Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug. Passage 2 Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin—who in 1825 confidently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell (line 15) you who you are”—would have no trouble describing cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. (line 20) Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters. 9. Which of the following statements best captures the relationship between the two passages?

A.

Passage 1 notes problems for which Passage 2proposes solutions.
B.

Passage 1 presents claims that are debunkedby Passage 2.
C.

Passage 2 furnishes a larger context forthe experiences described in Passage 1.
D.

Passage 2 provides an update of the situationdepicted in Passage 1.
E.

Passage 2 uses material presented in Passage 1to correct a popular misconception.

Correct Answer
C. Passage 2 furnishes a larger context forthe experiences described in Passage 1.

Explanation
Passage 2 provides a broader perspective and context for the experiences and observations described in Passage 1. While Passage 1 discusses the author's personal experiences with food and cultural identity, Passage 2 expands on the idea by stating that food is a significant marker of cultural identity in general and that Americans have a diverse and multiethnic approach to food. Passage 2 complements and adds to the information presented in Passage 1, providing a larger framework for understanding the relationship between food, culture, and identity.

Rate this question:

1

0

10.

Passage 1 Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) (line 5) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything. However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and (line 10) Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug. Passage 2 Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin—who in 1825 confidently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell (line 15) you who you are”—would have no trouble describing cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. (line 20) Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters. 10. The author of Passage 2 would most likely regard the mother’s willingness to “make French and Italian dishes” (lines 9-10, Passage 1) as

A.

Laughably pretentious
B.

Understandably conservative
C.

Typically American
D.

A regrettable compromise
E.

A surprising attitude

Correct Answer
C. Typically American

Explanation
The author of Passage 2 would most likely regard the mother's willingness to "make French and Italian dishes" as typically American. This is because the passage states that Americans "play with their food" and do not feel constrained by tradition. The author also mentions that Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures, indicating a willingness to embrace different cuisines. Therefore, the mother's willingness to make French and Italian dishes aligns with this idea of Americans being open to trying different foods and not being bound by traditional culinary rules.

Rate this question:

11.

Passage 1 Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) (line 5) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything. However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and (line 10) Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug. Passage 2 Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin—who in 1825 confidently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell (line 15) you who you are”—would have no trouble describing cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. (line 20) Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters. 11. The two passages differ in their discussions of food primarily in that Passage 1

A.

Considers specific dishes eaten by particular people, whereas Passage 2 comments on a culture’s general attitude toward eating
B.

Contrasts the cuisines of different cultures, whereas Passage 2 emphasizes culinary practices common to all cultures
C.

Presents an abstract theory of food, whereas Passage 2 offers a historical analysis of consumption
D.

Emphasizes the role of nostalgia in food preferences, whereas Passage 2 rejects that approach as overly sentimental
E.

Outlines some popular choices in cuisine, whereas Passage 2 underscores those that are more unusual

Correct Answer
A. Considers specific dishes eaten by particular people, whereas Passage 2 comments on a culture’s general attitude toward eating

Explanation
Passage 1 focuses on the personal experience of the author and their family, discussing specific Filipino dishes they ate and how their food choices changed over time. In contrast, Passage 2 takes a broader perspective and discusses the cultural identity of the United States as a whole, highlighting the general attitude towards eating and the diversity of culinary traditions in the country. Therefore, the two passages differ in their discussions of food primarily in that Passage 1 considers specific dishes eaten by particular people, whereas Passage 2 comments on a culture's general attitude toward eating.

Rate this question:

12.

Passage 1 Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) (line 5) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything. However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and (line 10) Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug. Passage 2 Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin—who in 1825 confidently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell (line 15) you who you are”—would have no trouble describing cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. (line 20) Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters. 12. Unlike the author of Passage 2, the author of Passage 1 makes significant use of

A.

Direct quotation
B.

Sociological analysis
C.

Hypothetical assumptions
D.

Historical sources
E.

Personal experience

Correct Answer
E. Personal experience

Explanation
The author of Passage 1 makes significant use of personal experience. This can be seen through the use of first-person pronouns and the author's own anecdotes and observations about their family's food traditions. The passage describes the author's personal connection to Filipino American food and how it changed as they grew older. This emphasis on personal experience distinguishes Passage 1 from Passage 2, where the author focuses more on general cultural observations.

Rate this question:

13.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 13. Which statement about the Fermi Paradox is supported by both passages?

A.

It articulates a crucial question for those interested in the existence of extraterrestrials.
B.

It clarifies the astronomical conditions required to sustain life on other planets.
C.

It reveals the limitations of traditional ideas about the pace of technological change.
D.

It demonstrates the scientific community’s fascination with the concept of interstellar travel.
E.

It suggests that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations may be uninterested in our culture.

Correct Answer
A. It articulates a crucial question for those interested in the existence of extraterrestrials.

Explanation
Both passages discuss the Fermi Paradox, which poses the question of why, if there are extraterrestrial civilizations, we have not yet detected any signs of their existence. This question is considered crucial for those interested in the existence of extraterrestrials, as it challenges the expectation that there should be numerous advanced civilizations in the galaxy. The passages explore different answers to the Fermi Paradox, but they both support the idea that the paradox raises an important question for those interested in the search for extraterrestrial life.

Rate this question:

1

0

14.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 14. Which statement best describes a significant difference between the two passages?

A.

Passage 1 analyzes a literary form, while Passage 2 argues that literature has little bearing on science.
B.

Passage 1 presents an argument, while Passage 2 surveys current opinion in a debate.
C.

Passage 1 concludes by rejecting the Fermi Paradox, while Passage 2 opens by embracing it.
D.

Passage 1 describes a phenomenon, while Passage 2 details a belief system that would reject such a phenomenon.
E.

Passage 1 defends a viewpoint, while Passage 2 questions that viewpoint’s place in scientific research.

Correct Answer
B. Passage 1 presents an argument, while Passage 2 surveys current opinion in a debate.

Explanation
Passage 1 presents an argument by discussing the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets and presenting the viewpoint that it is unlikely to find technologically advanced civilizations. On the other hand, Passage 2 surveys current opinion in a debate by discussing the Fermi Paradox and different explanations for why extraterrestrials have not visited Earth. Passage 2 does not present a specific argument but rather presents different perspectives on the topic.

Rate this question:

15.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 15. The author of Passage 1 mentions “monsters,” “humanoids,” and “creatures” (lines 2-4) primarily to

A.

Question the literary value of science fiction
B.

Contrast fictional notions with a scientific perspective
C.

Offer examples of the human fear of the unknown
D.

Criticize science fiction for being unduly alarmist
E.

Suggest that scientific research has been influenced by science fiction

Correct Answer
B. Contrast fictional notions with a scientific perspective

Explanation
The author of Passage 1 mentions "monsters," "humanoids," and "creatures" primarily to contrast fictional notions with a scientific perspective. The passage states that science fiction movies have conditioned us to consider these sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. However, the reality is that finding any kind of life, even something as simple as bacteria, would be an exciting discovery. This suggests that the author is highlighting the difference between fictional portrayals of extraterrestrial life and the scientific view that even simple forms of life would be significant.

Rate this question:

16.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 16. In line 17, “ran” most nearly means

A.

Fled
B.

Accumulated
C.

Traversed
D.

Managed
E.

Incurred

Correct Answer
D. Managed

Explanation
In this context, the word "ran" refers to Enrico Fermi managing or organizing the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. The word "ran" does not mean "fled," "accumulated," "traversed," or "incurred" in this context.

Rate this question:

17.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 17. Passage 1 suggests that the Fermi Paradox depends most directly on which assumption?

A.

Extraterrestrial civilizations may not wish to be discovered by human beings.
B.

Extraterrestrial civilizations would most likely have discovered technology at about the same time human beings discovered it.
C.

Extraterrestrial technology would develop at roughly the same rate as human technology.
D.

Extraterrestrial civilizations would inevitably use technology for aggressive ends.
E.

Science is a more powerful form of human knowledge than are art and literature.

Correct Answer
C. Extraterrestrial technology would develop at roughly the same rate as human technology.

Explanation
Passage 1 suggests that the Fermi Paradox depends most directly on the assumption that extraterrestrial technology would develop at roughly the same rate as human technology. The passage argues that if other civilizations had acquired science even a thousand years earlier than humans, they would already be colonizing our solar system. This assumption is supported by the idea that technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than anticipated. Therefore, the lack of evidence of technologically advanced civilizations visiting Earth suggests that they may not exist or that their technological development is not on par with humans.

Rate this question:

18.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 18. The claim made in Passage 1 that a “consensus” exists (lines 8-11) would most likely be interpreted by the author of Passage 2 as

A.

Evidence of compromise in the scientific community
B.

An attack on SETI researchers
C.

Support for Fermi’s analysis
D.

A revelation of an unexpected truth
E.

An oversimplification of a complex debate

Correct Answer
E. An oversimplification of a complex debate

Explanation
Passage 1 claims that there is a consensus within the scientific community that not only will we find life in other parts of the galaxy, but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. However, the author of Passage 2 would interpret this claim as an oversimplification of a complex debate. This is because Passage 2 presents different perspectives on the existence of extraterrestrial life and raises questions about the feasibility of high-speed interstellar travel and the assumption that intelligent beings would only be interested in radio communication. Therefore, the author of Passage 2 would view the claim in Passage 1 as overlooking the complexity of the debate surrounding the existence of intelligent life on other planets.

Rate this question:

19.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 19. The author of Passage 1 mentions Isaac Newton (lines 37-40) in order to

A.

Emphasize the rapid rate of technological innovation
B.

acknowledge the impact of a profound thinker
C.

Criticize the inflexibility of Newton’s contemporaries
D.

Speculate about Newton’s influence on current research
E.

Highlight the value of scientific curiosity

Correct Answer
A. EmpHasize the rapid rate of technological innovation

Explanation
The author mentions Isaac Newton in Passage 1 to emphasize the rapid rate of technological innovation. The author uses the example of how astounded Newton would be by our current global communication system to illustrate how technological abilities have increased over time. This supports the author's argument that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations may not exist because if they had acquired science even a thousand years earlier than us, they would already be colonizing our solar system.

Rate this question:

20.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 20. In lines 44-48, the author of Passage 2 indicates that the Fermi Paradox has been

A.

Thoroughly misunderstood
B.

Surprisingly influential
C.

Overwhelmingly perplexing
D.

Intermittently popular
E.

Frequently misquoted

Correct Answer
B. Surprisingly influential

Explanation
The author of Passage 2 suggests that the Fermi Paradox has been surprisingly influential. This can be inferred from the statement that the paradox has "reverberated through the decades" and has threatened the credibility of scientists engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. The implication is that the Fermi Paradox has had a significant impact on the field of extraterrestrial research, indicating its influence.

Rate this question:

21.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 21. How would Frank Drake (line 56, Passage 2) most likely respond to the statement by the author of Passage 1 about humans “colonizing other systems” (line 26) ?

A.

The means to accomplish such a project may be beyond our reach.
B.

Interstellar colonization is as morally problematic as was colonization on Earth.
C.

We would do better to study indigenous life-forms rather than search for extraterrestrial creatures.
D.

Humans would be wise to consider that they themselves are subject to colonization.
E.

Funding for such an undertaking would pose a thorny political issue for any government.

Correct Answer
A. The means to accomplish such a project may be beyond our reach.

Explanation
Frank Drake would most likely respond to the statement by the author of Passage 1 about humans "colonizing other systems" by suggesting that the means to accomplish such a project may be beyond our reach. This is supported by Drake's argument that high-speed interstellar travel is demanding of resources and hazardous, making it unlikely that intelligent civilizations would attempt it. Therefore, Drake would question the feasibility of humans colonizing other systems due to the challenges and limitations involved in interstellar travel.

Rate this question:

22.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 22. In line 57, "claims" most nearly means

A.

Demands
B.

Assertions
C.

Rights
D.

Territories
E.

Compensations

Correct Answer
B. Assertions

Explanation
In line 57, "claims" most nearly means assertions. This is because the passage is discussing the belief in the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and the word "claims" is used to refer to the belief or assertion that UFOs have visited Earth.

Rate this question:

23.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 23. In line 63, "radio communication" is cited as a

A.

Complex interaction
B.

Technological relic
C.

Common occurrence
D.

Practical alternative
E.

Dramatic advance

Correct Answer
D. Practical alternative

Explanation
In line 63, "radio communication" is cited as a practical alternative. This means that instead of attempting high-speed interstellar travel, intelligent civilizations can rely on radio communication to gather the information they need. The passage suggests that interstellar travel is demanding and hazardous, and it would require immense amounts of energy. Therefore, radio communication is seen as a more practical and feasible option for exchanging information between civilizations.

Rate this question:

24.

Questions 13 - 24 are based on the following passages. The passages below discuss the possibility of locating intelligent life on other planets. Passage 1 has been adapted from a 1999 book on the history of the universe. Passage 2 was excerpted from a 2000 book on the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. Passage 1 Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The (line 5) reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of (line 10) the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out (line 15) there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of (line 20) technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not (line 25) hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand (line 30) years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they (line 35) even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global (line 40) communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion. Passage 2 Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, (line 45) the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are (line 50) extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims (line 55) seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer (line 60) is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? (line 65) At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate (line 70) a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with (line 75) radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until (line 80) the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends (line 85) that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist. 24. Both the author of Passage 1 and Ben Zuckerman (line 73, Passage 2) imply that researchers seeking life on another planet should focus on which of the following?

A.

Seasonal variations in color due to plant life
B.

Evidence of the most basic forms of life
C.

Signs of artificially created structures
D.

Signals that might be radio communications
E.

Changes in geological surface features

Correct Answer
C. Signs of artificially created structures

Explanation
The author of Passage 1 and Ben Zuckerman both imply that researchers seeking life on another planet should focus on signs of artificially created structures. The author of Passage 1 argues that advanced civilizations would have already colonized our solar system if they existed, and Ben Zuckerman suggests that extraterrestrials may have had billions of years to investigate Earth and would have been able to deduce the presence of living creatures. Therefore, both passages suggest that researchers should look for evidence of technological advancements and artificially created structures as indicators of intelligent life on other planets.

Rate this question: