TSIA2 English Language Arts and Reading Exams — TSIA2 English Language Arts and Reading Diagnostic Answer Key
1. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was elected President of the United States, he won 55% of the vote.
Answer: D
Winning is the best version to convey the intended meaning.
Using "winning" effectively conveys the simultaneous action of Eisenhower being elected and achieving a majority of the vote in a concise manner.
A) he won
This option is grammatically correct but creates a comma splice, as it improperly connects two independent clauses. The structure lacks fluidity and coherence, making it less effective than the correct option.
B) he had won
The use of "he had won" introduces a past perfect tense that is unnecessary in this context. It implies a sequence of events that is not relevant here, as both actions occurred simultaneously in 1952.
C) with winning
The phrase "with winning" is awkward and does not clearly connect the two ideas in the sentence. It lacks the necessary grammatical structure to convey the relationship between being elected and the percentage of votes received.
D) winning
This option is the most effective as it succinctly links the election and the percentage of votes achieved without creating any grammatical errors. It presents a clear and direct relationship between the actions described.
Conclusion
The choice "winning" is superior because it maintains grammatical integrity while clearly expressing the connection between Eisenhower's election and his voting percentage. All other options either introduce errors or unnecessary complexity, making them less effective in conveying the intended meaning.
2. The author includes and defines the words "gargouille" and "gurgulio" primarily to
Answer: B
The author includes and defines the words "gargouille" and "gurgulio" primarily to connect the name and function of gargoyles.
By defining the terms "gargouille" and "gurgulio," the author emphasizes the relationship between the name of gargoyles and their practical purpose as water spouts that direct water away from roofs.
A) describe the physical appearance of gargoyles
This option is incorrect because the passage does not focus on the physical characteristics of gargoyles but rather on their name and functional role. The author does mention that gargoyles can be grotesque or undecorated, but this is not the primary purpose of including the definitions.
B) connect the name and function of gargoyles
This option is correct as the author uses the definitions of "gargouille" and "gurgulio" to illustrate that the etymology of the word relates directly to the gargoyles' purpose of directing water, thereby linking the name to its function.
C) establish the geographical origin of gargoyles
While the terms are derived from Old French and Late Latin, the passage does not focus on the geographical origins of gargoyles but rather their name and function. Therefore, this option misrepresents the author's intent.
D) suggest the artistic and cultural value of gargoyles
This option is incorrect because the passage does not discuss the artistic or cultural significance of gargoyles. Instead, it highlights their utilitarian purposes and the origins of their name, making this choice irrelevant to the context provided.
Conclusion
The correct answer is B, as it directly addresses the author's intention of linking the names "gargouille" and "gurgulio" to the functional aspects of gargoyles. The other options fail to connect this fundamental aspect, focusing instead on unrelated characteristics or implications that are not supported by the passage.
3. He was an outstanding public speaker he was also a talented writer.
Answer: B
He was an outstanding public speaker,
The best version of the underlined part of the sentence is "He was an outstanding public speaker," which correctly uses a comma to separate two independent clauses.
A) He was an outstanding public speaker
This option fails to include the necessary punctuation to connect the two independent clauses in the sentence. Without a comma or conjunction, the sentence becomes a run-on, lacking proper grammatical structure.
B) He was an outstanding public speaker,
This option is correct because it appropriately uses a comma to link the two independent clauses. The comma indicates a pause before the conjunction, which allows for a smoother transition to the next clause.
C) An outstanding public speaker,
This option is incorrect as it does not provide a complete thought. While it introduces the subject, it lacks the main verb and does not connect the clauses, making it an incomplete sentence.
D) An outstanding public speaker and
This option is also incorrect because it suggests the beginning of a sentence but does not complete the thought. It lacks a main clause and does not provide a full idea, leaving the reader hanging.
Conclusion
The choice "He was an outstanding public speaker," is the only option that correctly addresses the grammatical structure of the sentence by incorporating the necessary comma. The other options either lack completeness or proper punctuation, demonstrating why they do not serve as suitable alternatives.
Answer: C
The author of Passage 1 would most likely characterize the claim of the "detractors" mentioned in Passage 2 as an accurate description.
The author of Passage 1 expresses dissatisfaction with molecular gastronomy, indicating that the food lacks substance and is not worth the investment. This perspective aligns with the detractors' claim that molecular gastronomy is more art than food, suggesting that the author would view this claim as accurate.
A) an unfair accusation
This option is incorrect because the author does not suggest that the detractors' views are unjust. Instead, the author appears to agree with the notion that molecular gastronomy may prioritize creativity over the traditional aspects of food, which the detractors criticize.
B) a flattering portrayal
This choice is also incorrect. The author does not express admiration for molecular gastronomy or the views of its detractors. Instead, the author’s experiences indicate disappointment, which contradicts the notion of a flattering portrayal.
C) an accurate description
This option is correct as it reflects the author's own experiences and criticisms of molecular gastronomy. The author describes the food as lacking in substance and suggests that the detractors’ view that it is more art than food resonates with their own sentiments about the cuisine.
D) a flawed argument
This option is incorrect. While the author critiques the food, they do not dismiss the detractors' claims as flawed. Instead, the author acknowledges a shared perspective with the detractors, suggesting that their argument holds merit.
Conclusion
The correct characterization of the detractors' claim as an accurate description stems from the author's own negative experiences with molecular gastronomy. The author’s reflections on their meals suggest that they find resonance with the criticism that this culinary style prioritizes artistic presentation over fulfilling, traditional dining. Therefore, all other options fail to capture the author's perspective accurately.
Answer: A
Abandoned in the attic were
This phrase effectively introduces the items that were found in the attic, clearly indicating that they were left behind and specifying the location.
A) Abandoned in the attic were
This option is correct as it concisely presents the information, highlighting both the state of being abandoned and the location within the attic. The structure is grammatically sound and immediately informs the reader about what to expect in the following details.
B) In the attic and abandoned,
This option is incorrect because it lacks a clear subject and verb, making it an incomplete sentence. It introduces the location and state but does not specify what was abandoned, leaving the reader without essential information.
C) Abandoned and in the attic, there was
This option is incorrect as it introduces unnecessary complexity and awkward phrasing. The phrase "there was" adds ambiguity and detracts from the clarity of what items were abandoned, making the sentence less direct.
D) It was in the attic and abandoned
This option is also incorrect because it introduces a vague subject "It," which does not effectively specify the items. The sentence structure is less direct and fails to convey the same immediacy as the correct answer.
Conclusion
The correct option, "Abandoned in the attic were," provides a clear and succinct introduction to the items found, ensuring the reader immediately understands their context. All other options either lack clarity or introduce unnecessary complexity, ultimately failing to communicate the intended message effectively.
Answer: A
Marco won a trophy each of the three times he competed in the junior tennis tournament, but still the first prize eluded him.
The term "eluded" accurately describes the situation where the first prize remained out of reach for Marco despite his successes in other areas of the tournament.
A) eluded
This option is correct as "eluded" means to escape or evade. In this context, it indicates that the first prize was something Marco was unable to attain, highlighting the irony of his achievements in winning trophies but not securing the top prize.
B) alluded
This option is incorrect because "alluded" means to make an indirect reference to something. It does not fit the context of Marco's experience in the tournament, as there is no implication of reference but rather an expression of failure to capture the first prize.
C) elided
This option is also incorrect. "Elided" means to omit or leave out, which does not apply to Marco's situation. His experience was not about omission, but rather about the first prize being unattainable despite his efforts.
D) allied
This option is incorrect as "allied" refers to being joined in a formal relationship, typically for a common purpose. It does not relate to the concept of achieving or failing to achieve a prize in a competition, making it irrelevant in the context.
Conclusion
The correct term "eluded" effectively captures the essence of Marco's experience, as it conveys the idea that the first prize was just beyond his grasp despite his accomplishments. The other options fail to convey this meaning and misinterpret the context of the sentence. Thus, "eluded" is the only choice that accurately reflects Marco's situation in the tournament.
Answer: A
To juggle and by the age of six could juggle three balls perfectly.
This revision effectively combines the two original sentences into a coherent and fluid statement, maintaining the focus on the subject's self-taught ability and his accomplishment at a young age.
A) to juggle and by the age of six could juggle three balls perfectly.
This option successfully merges the two ideas by using a conjunction, which maintains the logical flow and clarity of the original sentences. It emphasizes the action of juggling while clearly stating the age at which the ability was achieved.
B) to juggle: he juggles three balls perfectly by the age of six.
While this option attempts to combine the sentences, the use of a colon is incorrect in this context. It disrupts the flow and gives the impression of a non-sequitur rather than a smooth integration of ideas.
C) to juggle three balls perfectly; they did it by the age of six.
This choice introduces the pronoun "they," which is confusing and does not specify who is performing the action. The sentence structure also becomes less direct and less impactful, detracting from the clarity of the original statements.
D) juggling, and they juggled three balls perfectly by the age of six.
This option introduces ambiguity with the pronoun "they," which does not align with the singular subject of the previous sentences. Additionally, the use of "juggling" as the initial phrase makes the sentence less direct and clear, failing to effectively convey the intended meaning.
Conclusion
Option A is the most effective choice because it clearly and cohesively combines the original sentences without introducing confusion or grammatical errors. The other options either disrupt the logical flow, introduce ambiguity, or misplace punctuation, thus failing to convey the intended meaning as effectively as Option A.
Answer: B
Left-handedness has largely vanished
The statement indicates that the stigma associated with left-handedness has significantly decreased over time, particularly in light of the fact that several recent U.S. presidents have been left-handed. This suggests a notable shift in societal attitudes toward left-handed individuals.
A) left-handedness largely vanishing
This option is incorrect as it presents the phrase in a gerund form, which does not convey a completed action or state. The use of "vanishing" implies an ongoing process rather than a conclusion that the stigma has significantly decreased.
B) left-handedness has largely vanished
This option is correct because it uses the present perfect tense "has largely vanished," indicating that the stigma associated with left-handedness is no longer prevalent. It effectively communicates a completed change in perception over time, aligning with the context provided.
C) left-handedness being largely vanished
This option is incorrect due to the awkward construction of "being largely vanished." The phrase does not successfully convey a clear or grammatically correct idea about the current state of left-handedness in relation to stigma.
D) left-handedness and largely vanished
This option is also incorrect as it fails to form a coherent statement. The conjunction "and" does not appropriately connect the concepts, and the phrase lacks the necessary grammatical structure to convey the intended meaning regarding the stigma.
Conclusion
Option B is definitively correct as it clearly articulates that the stigma surrounding left-handedness has significantly decreased, using appropriate grammatical structure. In contrast, all other options fail to convey a clear and accurate statement regarding the change in perception of left-handedness.
Answer: C
Changing 'they' to 'other people' would most improve sentence 12.
By revising 'they' to 'other people', the sentence becomes clearer and more specific, helping to emphasize the distinction between the speaker and those whose perspectives differ.
A) Change 'I am aware' to 'I notice'.
This change would not significantly enhance the clarity or impact of the sentence. While 'I notice' is more immediate, it does not convey the same level of understanding or awareness as 'I am aware', which is more appropriate in this context.
B) Change 'what I see' to 'the quality that I know'.
This revision would make the sentence unnecessarily complex and could obscure the intended meaning. 'What I see' is straightforward and effectively communicates the speaker's perspective on determination, whereas 'the quality that I know' introduces ambiguity.
C) Change 'they' to 'other people'.
This option enhances clarity by specifying who the speaker is contrasting their views against. 'Other people' makes it explicit that the differing perspective comes from a broader group, rather than an ambiguous 'they', which can be vague and detract from the sentence's impact.
D) Delete 'sometimes'.
Removing 'sometimes' would alter the nuance of the sentence, making it more absolute and potentially losing the idea that the differing perspective is not constant. Retaining 'sometimes' allows for a more nuanced understanding of how opinions may vary.
Conclusion
The best revision is to change 'they' to 'other people', as it clarifies the contrast in perspectives being discussed. This enhances the sentence's readability and ensures that the distinction between the speaker and the differing viewpoints is clear, while the other options either complicate the sentence unnecessarily or fail to improve its effectiveness.
10. What does the passage imply about Jimmy Page?
Answer: C
Page was primarily a guitarist, not a thereminist
The passage indicates that Jimmy Page is known primarily as the guitarist for Led Zeppelin, as it highlights his role in the band and the specific context of him playing the theremin in one song rather than suggesting he is a professional thereminist.
A) Page played the theremin in an unorthodox way
This option is incorrect as the passage does not provide any information or implications about the style or manner in which Page played the theremin. It simply states that he played it on a specific song without detailing his technique.
B) Page wrote the song "Whole Lotta Love" for the theremin
This statement is incorrect because the passage does not attribute the writing of "Whole Lotta Love" to Page in relation to the theremin. It only mentions that he played the theremin in the song, which does not imply that the song was specifically written for that instrument.
C) Page was primarily a guitarist, not a thereminist
This option is correct as the passage emphasizes Page's identity as a guitarist, noting his contribution to Led Zeppelin. While he did play the theremin, it is clear that this was not his primary musical role.
D) Page was a master of many instruments, including the theremin
This choice is misleading because the passage does not provide evidence or implications about Page being a master of the theremin or any other instruments. It focuses on his guitar work and mentions the theremin only in passing.
Conclusion
The correct answer clearly identifies Page as primarily a guitarist, which is supported by the context of the passage that emphasizes his role in Led Zeppelin. Other options either misrepresent the information provided or introduce ideas not supported by the text, confirming that C is the definitive answer.