ACCUPLACER Next Generation Reading Exams — ACCUPLACER Reading Test Next Generation
Answer: C
However, he spent most of his time writing poems in Spanish instead of studying English.
Using "However" at the beginning of sentence 11 indicates a contrast between Lorca's intention to learn English and his actual actions of writing poems in Spanish.
A) In addition,
"In addition," implies a continuation of the previous thought without any contrast. Since Lorca’s action of not studying English contradicts his intention, this option does not accurately convey the intended meaning.
B) For example,
"For example," suggests that the following statement will illustrate or provide a specific case related to the previous sentence. However, writing poems in Spanish is not an example of learning English; it is a deviation from that goal, making this option inappropriate.
C) However,
"However," effectively introduces a contrast between Lorca’s goal of learning English and what he actually did, which was to focus on writing poems in Spanish. This word accurately reflects the unexpected outcome of his time in New York.
D) Indeed,
"Indeed," is used to affirm or emphasize a statement previously made. It does not convey the necessary contrast required in this context, as it would imply that writing poems in Spanish aligns with his intention to learn English, which is incorrect.
Conclusion
The use of "However" correctly highlights the contradiction between Lorca's intention and his actions, making it the most suitable choice. All other options fail to convey the necessary contrast, which is central to understanding Lorca's experience in New York.
2. In context, the second quotation in Passage 1 ('Cats... own') serves to:
Answer: B
The second quotation in Passage 1 serves to reinforce an observation by using a metaphor.
The phrase "Cats don't rent; they own" highlights the metaphorical nature of the relationship between cats and their environment, emphasizing their dominance and innate assertiveness. This metaphor effectively reinforces the author's observation about the powerful presence of big cats like Josef, illustrating their strength and ownership of their surroundings.
A) Present an alternative view of a troubling situation
This option is incorrect because the quotation does not present an alternative view; rather, it emphasizes the established observation of the lion's nature and dominance. The statement does not introduce a different perspective on the situation but rather reinforces the existing view of cats as assertive beings.
B) Reinforce an observation by using a metaphor
This option is correct as the quotation uses the metaphor of ownership to highlight the lion's commanding presence. By stating that "Cats don't rent; they own," the author underscores the idea that these animals are not just part of their environment but are its masters, thus reinforcing the main observation made in the passage.
C) Warn the reader of an existing danger
This option is incorrect because the quotation does not serve as a warning. While the author discusses the inherent danger of being near a lion, the metaphor about ownership does not act as a cautionary statement but instead illustrates the lion's nature.
D) Cite an authority to support a point
This option is incorrect because the quotation does not reference an authority or expert opinion. Instead, it presents a metaphorical perspective that reflects the author’s views, lacking any form of external citation to support its assertion.
Conclusion
The correct answer, B, is definitive as it accurately captures the essence of the metaphorical statement about cats' ownership over their territory, reinforcing the theme of their dominance. The other options fail to recognize the metaphorical nature of the quotation and misinterpret its purpose within the context of the passage.
3. Unlike Passage 2, Passage 1 makes use of:
Answer: C
Passage 1 makes use of personal anecdote.
Passage 1 utilizes a personal anecdote as the narrator shares their firsthand experience of walking alongside a lion, reflecting their feelings and thoughts about the situation. This personal narrative approach contrasts with the more analytical nature of Passage 2.
A) Scientific observation
While scientific observation involves empirical evidence and objective data, Passage 1 does not present any scientific findings or analyses. Instead, it focuses on the narrator's subjective experience with the lion, which does not qualify as a scientific observation.
B) Historical allusion
Historical allusion refers to references to historical events or figures to provide context or depth. Passage 1 does not reference any historical events or figures; it is centered on the immediate experience of the narrator with the lion, making this option incorrect.
C) Personal anecdote
This option is correct because Passage 1 is grounded in the narrator's personal experience and feelings about being near a lion. The storytelling aspect highlights individual perception and emotion, which is characteristic of a personal anecdote.
D) Logical reasoning
Logical reasoning involves the use of structured arguments and evidence to draw conclusions. Passage 1 does not engage in logical reasoning; it is more descriptive and emotive, focusing on personal experience rather than argumentation.
Conclusion
The correct answer is C, as Passage 1 effectively employs a personal anecdote to convey the narrator's emotions and experiences. In contrast, all other options fail to accurately describe the nature of Passage 1, which centers on individual storytelling rather than scientific data, historical context, or logical argumentation. This distinction underscores the narrative style of Passage 1 compared to the analytical tone of Passage 2.
4. Which sentence should be deleted from the passage because it contains irrelevant information?
Answer: B
Sentence 5 should be deleted from the passage because it contains irrelevant information.
Sentence 5 introduces Berkeley Breathed's "Bloom County," which, while a popular comic strip, does not directly relate to the main subject of Calvin and Hobbes or its thematic elements.
A) Sentence 3
Sentence 3 provides essential information about the creation and publication of Calvin and Hobbes, noting the cartoonist Bill Watterson and the time frame during which the comic strip ran. This context is relevant to understanding the significance and popularity of the comic.
B) Sentence 5
Sentence 5 states that "Berkeley Breathed's Bloom County was another popular comic strip from the time period." This information, while accurate, is irrelevant to the discussion of Calvin and Hobbes as it diverts the focus from the primary subject, making it unnecessary for the passage.
C) Sentence 7
Sentence 7 discusses Watterson's intent to compare Calvin's reality with the grown-up version, which is pertinent to the themes explored in Calvin and Hobbes. This sentence enhances the understanding of the comic's philosophical depth and relevance.
D) Sentence 9
Sentence 9 describes the physical comedy aspect of the rides that Calvin and Hobbes often undertake, which contributes to the understanding of the comic's humor and its storytelling style. This information is relevant and adds to the description of the comic's content.
Conclusion
Deleting Sentence 5 is justified as it introduces an unrelated comic strip that does not contribute to the understanding of Calvin and Hobbes. The other sentences provide necessary context, thematic depth, and relevant humor associated with the comic, reinforcing its significance in the discussion.
5. In context, which of the following is the best way to revise and combine the sentences ?
Answer: C
The children’s lunch box market experienced its golden age in the 1950s, when sales exploded, but adults had been using lunch boxes much earlier.
This revision effectively highlights the timeline of lunch box usage, emphasizing the contrast between the peak in children's lunch box sales and the earlier use by adults, which is crucial for understanding the context.
A) Because adults had been using lunch boxes much earlier, the children"s lunch box market experienced its golden age in the 1950s, when sales exploded.
This option presents a causal relationship that is not supported by the extract. While it mentions the earlier usage by adults, it implies that this directly caused the market's golden age, which misrepresents the information provided.
B) Adults had been using lunch boxes much earlier, and when the children"s lunch box market experienced its golden age in the 1950s, their sales exploded.
This choice incorrectly suggests a temporal sequence that does not accurately reflect the relationship between the two ideas. The conjunction "and" implies simultaneity rather than the distinction that the original extract provides.
C) The children"s lunch box market experienced its golden age in the 1950s, when sales exploded, but adults had been using lunch boxes much earlier.
This option is the best choice as it captures the essence of the extract by contrasting the peak sales period for children's lunch boxes with the earlier established use by adults. It maintains clarity and coherence while preserving the original context.
D) The children"s lunch box market experienced its golden age in the 1950s, and sales exploded, meanwhile adults had been using lunch boxes much earlier.
While this option conveys the information, the use of "meanwhile" suggests a less clear relationship between the two statements. It dilutes the contrast that is essential in understanding the timeline and significance of each point.
Conclusion
Option C is definitively the best choice as it succinctly and accurately reflects the relationship between the two historical points regarding lunch boxes. Other options either misrepresent the causal relationship or fail to emphasize the important contrast needed to understand the context fully.
Answer: B
To teach the customer a lesson, Crum allegedly sliced a new batch of potatoes as thinly as he possibly could, fried the slices until they were hard and crunchy, and then doused them with salt.
The best revision of the underlined portion is "and then doused," which maintains the parallel structure of the sentence by using a consistent verb form.
A) and then he doused
This option introduces an unnecessary pronoun "he," which disrupts the parallel construction established in the list of actions. The original structure lists actions without additional subjects, making this option less effective.
B) and then doused
This option effectively maintains the parallel structure of the sentence by using the same verb form as the preceding actions. It succinctly connects the action of dousing the potatoes with the previous verbs, creating a smooth and grammatically consistent flow.
C) doused them
While this option removes the conjunction and maintains the core action, it alters the structure of the sentence. The removal of "and then" changes the sequence of actions and makes it less clear that this is part of a series of steps taken by Crum.
D) and finally dousing
This option introduces the adverb "finally," which adds unnecessary complexity and disrupts the parallelism of the previous verbs. It also shifts the action into a gerund form, which is inconsistent with the previous actions listed.
Conclusion
The revision "and then doused" is the most appropriate choice as it preserves the parallel structure and clarity of the sentence. Other options either disrupt this flow or change the intended meaning, making them less suitable for the context. Thus, option B is definitively the best choice.
Answer: D
Other New Yorkers say they are in favor of the bike lanes just for keeping bicyclists off the sidewalks.
The most appropriate placement for the sentence is after sentence 12. This position allows the new information to build upon the existing discussion of New Yorkers' support for bike lanes, specifically addressing a different motivation for that support.
A) After sentence 1
Inserting the sentence here would disrupt the introduction of the topic regarding the history of bicycle lanes in New York City. Sentence 1 sets the stage for the discussion on bike lanes, and adding this sentence would introduce a perspective that is not yet contextualized.
B) After sentence 3
This placement would be inappropriate as it follows a historical reference to the construction of bike lanes. The sentence about keeping bicyclists off sidewalks is focused on contemporary opinions, which would feel out of place immediately after a historical point.
C) After sentence 9
While this option occurs after a specific instance of opposition to bike lanes, it does not relate directly to the reasons for support. It does not allow for a cohesive transition from the negative sentiments expressed in sentence 9 to a supportive statement about bike lanes.
D) After sentence 12
This option is the best choice as it follows a discussion about the support for bike lanes due to environmental, health, and safety benefits. Inserting the new sentence here emphasizes that some New Yorkers support bike lanes for practical reasons, specifically to prevent conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians on sidewalks, thus adding depth to the conversation about public sentiment.
Conclusion
The correct placement of the sentence enhances the context surrounding public support for bike lanes by introducing an additional rationale for that support. Options A, B, and C fail to provide a logical connection to the ongoing discussion about the benefits and support for bike lanes, making D the only suitable choice.
Answer: C
Finding a previously unknown letter between Newton and Leibniz discussing calculus that predated its commonly assumed discovery challenges Ogburn and Thomas's belief.
This discovery would indicate that Newton and Leibniz were not independently discovering calculus in isolation, but rather collaborating or communicating about it beforehand, thereby undermining the notion of simultaneous discovery as an inevitable phenomenon.
A) Uncovering the existence of a journal that Newton kept while working with calculus
While this option could provide insights into Newton's thought process and development of calculus, it would not challenge the idea of simultaneous discovery. A journal would likely document Newton's independent work rather than imply a lack of inevitability in the discovery itself.
B) Learning that scientists other than Newton and Leibniz had also made substantial progress on calculus
This option suggests that multiple individuals were working on similar ideas, reinforcing rather than challenging the concept of simultaneous discovery. It supports the idea that calculus was in the intellectual climate, rather than contradicting the inevitability suggested by Ogburn and Thomas.
C) Finding a previously unknown letter between Newton and Leibniz discussing calculus that predated its commonly assumed discovery
This finding would directly challenge Ogburn and Thomas's belief by suggesting that the discovery of calculus was not purely independent but rather involved prior communication between the two mathematicians. It implies that their discoveries were influenced by each other, thus questioning the notion of inevitability.
D) Identifying a minor error in Newton's original mathematical calculations
While identifying a minor error may affect the perception of Newton's contributions, it does not challenge the concept of simultaneous discovery itself. The error does not negate the fact that both Newton and Leibniz arrived at the concept of calculus around the same time.
Conclusion
The correct answer, option C, effectively challenges Ogburn and Thomas's assertion by introducing evidence of communication between Newton and Leibniz, suggesting that their discoveries were not merely coincidental. All other options either reinforce the idea of simultaneous discovery or do not provide sufficient evidence to dispute the inevitability of the phenomenon as proposed by Ogburn and Thomas.
Answer: A
Environmental scientists compromise their credibility when they disguise their personal opinions as scientific consensus.
The author of Passage 2 asserts that environmental scientists diminish their credibility by presenting their personal views as if they reflect the agreement of the scientific community. This distinction is crucial for maintaining trust and clarity in scientific communication.
A) disguise their personal opinions as scientific consensus
This option accurately reflects the author’s concern that when environmental scientists blend their personal beliefs with scientific consensus, it can lead to misunderstandings about the nature of their findings. By failing to clearly differentiate between subjective opinions and objective scientific data, they risk undermining their authority and the public's trust in their work.
B) gather the opinions of their fellow scientists
Gathering opinions from fellow scientists is a standard practice in scientific research and does not compromise credibility. In fact, collaboration and peer input often enhance the robustness of scientific findings. Therefore, this option does not align with the author's argument regarding credibility.
C) make public announcements
Making public announcements is not inherently detrimental to credibility; it is often a necessary part of disseminating scientific knowledge. The author does not imply that public communication itself is problematic, but rather the manner in which personal opinions are presented in relation to scientific consensus.
D) withhold information about environmental problems
Withholding information about environmental issues would likely have the opposite effect, as transparency is essential for maintaining credibility. The author advocates for environmental scientists to inform the public about their findings, suggesting that withholding information would actually harm their credibility, not compromise it.
Conclusion
The correct answer, A, underscores the importance of distinguishing between personal beliefs and scientifically established facts to maintain credibility. The other options do not reflect the author's primary concern regarding the integrity of scientific communication, illustrating that clear delineation between personal and collective scientific views is essential for fostering public trust in environmental science.
10. Which of the following is the best way to revise and combine the above sentences?
Answer: C
The frog's grooved foot pads "self clean" by secreting a mucus-like liquid; as a result, the stickiness of the foot pad increases, and it is rendered immediately reusable.
This revision effectively combines the two original sentences by using a semicolon to link them logically, indicating a cause-and-effect relationship between the secretion of the mucus-like liquid and the increased stickiness of the foot pad.
A) Because the stickiness of the foot pad increases, and it is rendered immediately reusable, the frog's grooved foot pads "self clean" by secreting a mucus-like liquid.
This option presents the information in a way that implies the stickiness is the cause of the self-cleaning process, which is incorrect. The original context indicates that the secretion leads to increased stickiness, not the other way around.
B) The frog's grooved foot pads "self clean" by secreting a mucus-like liquid, but the stickiness of the foot pad increases, and it is rendered immediately reusable.
Using "but" introduces a contrast that is not present in the original sentences. There is no opposing idea; instead, the stickiness is a direct result of the self-cleaning action, making this option misleading.
C) The frog's grooved foot pads "self clean" by secreting a mucus-like liquid; as a result, the stickiness of the foot pad increases, and it is rendered immediately reusable.
This option correctly establishes the relationship between the secretion of the mucus-like liquid and the resulting increase in stickiness, clearly articulating the cause and effect. It maintains the original meaning while enhancing clarity.
D) The stickiness of the foot pad increases, and it is rendered immediately reusable; in fact, the frog's grooved foot pads "self clean" by secreting a mucus-like liquid.
This revision inaccurately positions the stickiness as the primary subject, which can confuse the reader. It suggests that the increased stickiness is the main point, rather than the self-cleaning mechanism that causes it.
Conclusion
Option C is the best choice as it accurately reflects the cause-and-effect relationship outlined in the original text, linking the secretion of mucus to the increased stickiness of the frog's foot pads. All other options either misrepresent the relationship or introduce unnecessary contrasts, failing to convey the intended meaning effectively.