SAT Section 2 - Group 4 | Attempts: 846 - 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
Sports events are considered exciting when the competitors are of equal ability because it creates a sense of uncertainty. When the outcome of the game is unpredictable, it adds an element of excitement and suspense for the fans. This keeps them engaged and interested in the event, as they are unsure of who will come out victorious. If the outcome was assured or predictable, the event would be considered dull or boring, as there would be no element of surprise or suspense.

Rate this question:

1

0

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 the phrases 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 broken 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
Drug manufacturers often promote or advertise the supposed advantages of their proprietary brands. However, the consumer advocate argues that generic versions of the same medications are often equally effective or efficacious.

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
The correct answer is insightfulness . . self-critical. This is because the sentence states that Latoya's ability to see her own faults more clearly than anyone else can demonstrates her insightfulness. Additionally, it implies that she is self-critical, meaning she is able to objectively evaluate and criticize herself.

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 extremely strong desire or appetite that cannot be satisfied. In the context of the sentence, it suggests that the bearded dragon lizard has a relentless and unquenchable appetite for insects, consuming as many as possible. This explanation aligns with the statement that the lizard is a voracious eater and supports the idea that it will consume as many insects as it can.

Rate this question:

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". This is because the sentence states that Tony Williams paved the way for later jazz-fusion musicians, implying that he was an originator or pioneer of that style. A progenitor is someone who is regarded as an ancestor or originator of a particular movement or style, which fits the context of the sentence.

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". This is because the sentence states that the politician's speech was composed of nothing but bitter railing against the party's opponents. A diatribe refers to a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing, which fits perfectly in this context. The other options, such as digressions (going off topic), platitudes (cliché statements), machinations (secret plots), and acclamations (praise), do not accurately describe the nature of the speech as being bitter and railing against opponents.

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 is encouraging students to use a concise and minimalist writing style, which is characterized by being spare. On the other hand, an ornate prose style is characterized by using elaborate and intricate language. Therefore, the correct answer is spare . . ornate.

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 focuses on the author's personal experiences with food and cultural identity, Passage 2 expands on the idea by discussing the cultural identities of Americans as a whole and how food plays a role in shaping those identities. Passage 2 suggests that American food culture is characterized by a lack of strict culinary traditions and a willingness to incorporate diverse influences, which provides a larger context for the author's observations in Passage 1 about the changing nature of their own family's food choices.

Rate this question:

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 do not feel constrained by tradition and are tolerant adventurers when it comes to food. 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 explore and incorporate French and Italian dishes aligns with the author's description of American eating habits.

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 that they ate and how their food choices changed over time. It emphasizes the connection between food and cultural identity. On the other hand, Passage 2 takes a broader perspective and discusses the general attitude towards eating in American culture. It highlights the diversity of culinary traditions and the tendency to mix different cuisines. It does not focus on specific dishes or individuals, but rather on the overall cultural approach to food.

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 inferred from the use of first-person pronouns such as "I" and "we" throughout the passage. The author talks about their own family's food traditions and how they have changed over time, indicating a personal connection to the topic. The passage also includes specific examples of the author's experiences, such as their mother taking cooking classes and learning to make different dishes. This emphasis on personal experience suggests that the author is drawing from their own life to discuss the topic of cultural food traditions.

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 haven't detected any signs of their existence. Passage 1 mentions Enrico Fermi's question "So where is everybody?" and Passage 2 refers to it as the Fermi Paradox. This demonstrates that the Fermi Paradox is a crucial question for those interested in the existence of extraterrestrials, as it is discussed and analyzed in both passages.

Rate this question:

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 presenting different explanations for the lack of contact with extraterrestrial civilizations.

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 author is highlighting the unrealistic portrayals of extraterrestrial life in science fiction movies and emphasizing that the reality of finding any form of life, even simple bacteria, would be an exciting discovery. This contrast between fictional ideas and scientific understanding is used to support the author's belief that advanced technological civilizations are unlikely to exist.

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 line 17, the word "ran" most nearly means "managed". This can be inferred from the context of the sentence, which mentions Enrico Fermi as the person who "ran" the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. The word "ran" in this context refers to Fermi's role in managing or overseeing the nuclear reaction.

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 there were other advanced civilizations in the galaxy, they would have likely developed science and technology at different times than humans, either earlier or later. This assumption is supported by the idea that technological advances build upon each other and that if other civilizations were significantly more advanced than humans, they would have already colonized our solar system.

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 intelligent and technologically advanced life exists in other parts of the galaxy. However, the author of Passage 2 would interpret this claim as an oversimplification of a complex debate. The author of Passage 2 argues that the Fermi Paradox and the challenges of interstellar travel suggest that it is unlikely for advanced civilizations to exist and visit Earth. Therefore, the claim of a consensus in Passage 1 oversimplifies the debate by ignoring these arguments and presenting a more optimistic view of the existence of intelligent life.

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 of Passage 1 mentions Isaac Newton in order to emphasize the rapid rate of technological innovation. The passage states that technological advances build upon each other and increase faster than anticipated. By referring to Isaac Newton, a great seventeenth-century scientist, the author highlights the vast difference in technological advancements between his time and the present. This serves to support the argument that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations may exist, but their absence could be attributed to the rapid pace of technological progress.

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 is indicated by the statement that the question posed by Fermi has "reverberated through the decades" and has threatened the credibility of scientists engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. The author further emphasizes the influence of the Fermi Paradox by mentioning that it has been a topic of discussion and debate among scientists, and that it has led to different theories and explanations regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life.

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 statement that high-speed interstellar travel is demanding of resources and hazardous, making it unlikely that intelligent civilizations would attempt it.

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, the word "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" refers to the assertions or statements made by those who believe in UFOs.

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 exchange information. The passage suggests that the distances between stars are immense and interstellar travel would require significant resources and be hazardous. Therefore, radio communication is seen as a more feasible and efficient way for civilizations to communicate and gather information from each other.

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 implies that researchers seeking life on another planet should focus on signs of artificially created structures. The author argues that it is unlikely for a large number of technologically advanced civilizations to exist, and suggests that if these civilizations are more advanced than us, they would already be colonizing our solar system. This implies that researchers should look for evidence of these civilizations, such as artificially created structures. Ben Zuckerman in Passage 2 also challenges the assumption that researchers should only focus on intelligent life and suggests that extraterrestrials may have an interest in simpler life forms, indicating the importance of looking for signs of life in general.

Rate this question: