Choice A is the best answer. Jordan is making a distinction between two types of “parties”: the informal associations to which Alexander Hamilton refers and formal, organized political parties such as the modern-day Republican and Democratic parties. Jordan anticipates that listeners to her speech might misinterpret her use of Hamilton’s quotation as suggesting that she thinks impeachment is essentially a tool of organized political parties to achieve partisan ends, with one party attacking and another defending the president. Throughout the passage and notably in the seventh paragraph (lines 38–43), Jordan makes clear that she thinks impeachment should be reserved only for the most serious of offenses — ones that should rankle people of any political affiliation. Choice B is not the best answer because Jordan offers no objection to Hamilton’s notion that impeachment proceedings excite passions. Indeed, she quotes Hamilton extensively in a way that indicates that she fundamentally agrees with his view on impeachment. Moreover, she acknowledges that her own speech is impassioned — that she feels a “solemnness” (line 2) and a willingness to indulge in “hyperbole” (line 1). Choice C is not the best answer because Jordan offers no objection to Hamilton’s level of support for the concept of impeachment. Indeed, she quotes Hamilton extensively in a way that indicates that she fundamentally agrees with his view on impeachment. Choice D is not the best answer because Jordan suggests that she and her fellow members of Congress are “trying to be big” (line 48), or high- minded, rather than decide the present case on the basis of politics. Indeed, throughout the last four paragraphs of the passage (lines 26–49), she elaborates on the principled, just basis on which impeachment should proceed. Moreover, throughout the passage Jordan is focused on the present impeachment hearings, not on the justice or injustice of impeachments generally.
Choice B is the best answer because the author indicates that reed warblers and sparrows, like loggerhead turtles, had previously been known to have “some way of working out longitude” (line 34). Choice A is not the best answer because although the author notes that loggerhead turtles, reed warblers, and sparrows are all “animal migrants” (line 33), he offers no specifics about reed warblers’ and sparrows’ migration patterns, and the only connection he draws among the three animals is their recognized ability of somehow “working out longitude” (line 34). Choice C is not the best answer because the author only mentions three “animal migrants” by name (loggerhead turtles, reed warblers, and sparrows) and indicates that “several” such migrants had previously been known to have “some way of working out longitude” (line 34). He makes no claim in the passage that most animal species have some long-distance navigation ability. Choice D is not the best answer because although the author indicates that reed warblers and sparrows, like loggerhead turtles, are “animal migrants” (line 33), he offers no specifics about how the ability to navigate long distances might help reed warblers and sparrows (nor, for that matter, much information about how this ability might help loggerhead turtles).
Choice A is the best answer. Jordan helps establish her idealism by declaring that she is an “inquisitor” (line 1) and that her “faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total” (line 2). At numerous points in the passage, Jordan sets forth principles (e.g., “The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive,” in lines 13–15) and makes reference to important documents that do the same, including the U.S. Constitution and Federalist No. 65. Choice B is not the best answer because although Jordan is advocating a position, there is no evidence in the passage that she is seeking a compromise position. Indeed, she notes that she is “not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution” (lines 3–4), indicating that she is not seeking compromise. Choice C is not the best answer because Jordan is a participant (“an inquisitor,” line 1) in the proceedings, not a mere observer. Indeed, she notes that she is “not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution” (lines 3–4). Choice D is not the best answer because Jordan is identified as a congresswoman and (“an inquisitor,” line 1), not a scholar, and because she is primarily discussing events happening at the moment, not researching an unidentified historical controversy. While she refers to historical documents and individuals, her main emphasis is on the (then) present impeachment hearings.
Choice B is the best answer. The researchers described in Passage 1 “hid behind a blind” (Passage 1, line 16) to avoid being seen by the crow. The author of Passage 2, on the other hand, made no attempt to conceal his presence; in fact, as he describes it, he “led” the ravens in his study on “walks” (Passage 2, lines 1–2), during which he “touched specific objects” (Passage 2, line 4) and then watched to see whether the birds touched the same objects. The author of Passage 2 notes that the ravens “soon became more independent” (Passage 2, line 8), going their own way rather than continuing to follow the author. From this it is clear that the author of Passage 2, unlike the researchers described in Passage 1, intentionally made the birds aware of his presence. Choice A is not the best answer because while a case could be made that the author of Passage 2 gave the ravens a problem to solve (Which new objects are best to touch?), the researchers described in Passage 1 presented the crows with a problem as well: how to extract meat from a log. Thus, presenting birds with a problem to solve was not a difference between the experiments. Choice C is not the best answer because both the researchers described in Passage 1 and the author of Passage 2 consciously manipulated the birds’ surroundings. The crow researchers placed meat pieces in a log and a pandanus plant behind the log (see Passage 1, lines 15–16). The author of Passage 2 put unfamiliar objects on a path for the ravens to find (see Passage 2, lines 13–14). Thus, conscious manipulation of the birds’ surroundings was not a difference between the experiments. Choice D is not the best answer because there is no evidence that the author of Passage 2 tested the ravens’ tool-using abilities. The passage instead indicates that the author recorded observations about the birds’ interactions with objects naturally occurring in and artificially introduced into the environment.
Choice B is the best answer. The passage notes that Lohmann, who studied loggerhead turtle hatchlings “in a large water tank surrounded by a large grid of electromagnetic coils” (lines 11–12) capable of manipulating the magnetic field around the turtles, discovered that the hatchlings would start “swimming in the opposite direction” when he “reverse21 the direction of the magnetic field around them” (lines 12–14). The graphic (whose caption establishes that geographic north is represented by 0 degrees) indicates that loggerhead hatchlings tested in a magnetic field that simulates a position at the east side of the Atlantic near the Cape Verde Islands would normally travel in a southwesterly direction (around 218 degrees). Given the above information, it is reasonable to infer that if the magnetic field were reversed, the turtles would travel in a northeasterly direction. Choice A is not the best answer because information in the passage and graphic suggests that the loggerhead turtle hatchlings would travel in a northeasterly, and not a northwesterly, direction if scientists reversed the magnetic field simulating a position at the east side of the Atlantic near the Cape Verde Islands. Choice C is not the best answer because information in the passage and graphic suggests that the loggerhead turtle hatchlings would travel in a northeasterly, and not a southeasterly, direction if scientists reversed the magnetic field simulating a position at the east side of the Atlantic near the Cape Verde Islands. Choice D is not the best answer because information in the passage and graphic suggests that the loggerhead turtle hatchlings would travel in a northeasterly, and not a southwesterly, direction if scientists reversed the magnetic field simulating a position at the east side of the Atlantic near the Cape Verde Islands. The graphic indicates that the hatchlings travel southwesterly under the normal (nonreversed) simulated conditions.
Choice A is the best answer. The last paragraph of Passage 2 presents the results of an experiment in which the author scattered unfamiliar objects in the path of some ravens. According to the passage, the birds initially “contacted all new objects preferentially” but in “subsequent trials” only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible” (Passage 2, lines 19-25). Choice B is not the best answer because the ravens studied by the author only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible,” whereas “the inedible objects became ‘background’ items, just like the leaves, grass, and pebbles” (Passage 2, lines 19-25). In other words, plentiful items did not continue to interest the ravens unless the items were edible. Choice C is not the best answer because the ravens studied by the author only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible,” whereas “the inedible objects became ‘background’ items, just like the leaves, grass, and pebbles, even if they were highly conspicuous” (Passage 2, lines 19-25). In other words, conspicuous items did not continue to interest the ravens unless the items were edible. Choice D is not the best answer because the ravens studied by the author only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible,” whereas “the inedible objects became ‘background’ items, just like the leaves, grass, and pebbles” (Passage 2, lines 19-25). In other words, natural items did not continue to interest the ravens unless the items were edible.
Choice C is the best answer because in lines 38–40, Jordan draws a contrast between political motivations and “high crime[s] and misdemeanors” as the basis for impeachment and argues that impeachment “must proceed within the confines” of the latter concept. These lines thus serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question. Choice A is not the best answer because lines 10–12 only address a misconception that Jordan contends some people have about what a vote for impeachment means. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question. Choice B is not the best answer because lines 15–18 only speak to a division of responsibility between the two houses of the U.S. Congress. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question. Choice D is not the best answer because lines 45–47 (“Congress...transportation”) serve mainly to indicate that the U.S. Congress has an extensive and important agenda. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.
Choice D is the best answer. According to Passage 1, Morgan’s canon is “the principle that suggestions of humanlike mental processes behind an animal’s behavior should be rejected if a simpler explanation will do” (Passage 1, lines 1–3). The main conclusion drawn by the author of Passage 2 is that “ravens’ curiosity ensures exposure to all or almost all items in the environment” (Passage 2, lines 25–26). In referring to the ravens’ behavior as reflecting “curiosity,” a human trait, the author of Passage 2 would seem to be ascribing a humanlike mental process to an animal’s behavior without explicitly considering alternate explanations. Choice A is not the best answer because the main conclusion drawn by the author of Passage 2 is that “ravens’ curiosity ensures exposure to all or almost all items in the environment” (Passage 2, lines 25–26). In referring to the ravens’ behavior as reflecting “curiosity,” a human trait, the author of Passage 2 would seem to be ascribing a humanlike mental process to an animal’s behavior without explicitly considering alternate explanations. Morgan’s canon holds that such suggestions should be rejected unless a “simpler explanation” cannot be found (Passage 1, lines 1–3); therefore, the conclusion the author of Passage 2 reaches is not consistent with Morgan’s canon. Moreover, by ascribing the ravens’ behavior to “curiosity,” the author of Passage 2 seems to reject environmental factors as the cause. Choice B is not the best answer because the main conclusion drawn by the author of Passage 2 is that “ravens’ curiosity ensures exposure to all or almost all items in the environment” (Passage 2, lines 25–26). In referring to the ravens’ behavior as reflecting “curiosity,” a human trait, the author of Passage 2 would seem to be ascribing a humanlike mental process to an animal’s behavior without explicitly considering alternate explanations. Morgan’s canon holds that such suggestions should be rejected unless a “simpler explanation” cannot be found (Passage 1, lines 1–3); therefore, the conclusion the author of Passage 2 reaches cannot be the type of “simpler explanation” Morgan was alluding to. Choice C is not the best answer because while the main conclusion drawn by the author of Passage 2 is not consistent with Morgan’s canon (see explanation for choice D), nothing about how the canon is described in Passage 1 precludes the possibility that animals can exhibit complex behavior patterns. The canon merely rejects the idea that humanlike mental processes should quickly or easily be attributed to animals.
Choice A is the best answer because the quoted phrases — building from “diminution” to “subversion” to “destruction” — suggest the increasing seriousness of the threat Jordan sees to the Constitution. Choice B is not the best answer because the passage offers no evidence that the quoted phrases refer to three different events that happened in a strict sequence. It is more reasonable to infer from the passage that Jordan sees “diminution,” “subversion,” and “destruction” as differing degrees to which the Constitution could be undermined. Moreover, the passage suggests that Jordan sees these three things as products of the same action or series of actions, not as three distinct stages in a process. Choice C is not the best answer because the passage offers no evidence that the quoted phrases refer to three distinct ways in which the Constitution is prone to failure. It is more reasonable to infer from the passage that Jordan sees “diminution,” “subversion,” and “destruction” as differing degrees to which the Constitution could be undermined. Moreover, the passage suggests that Jordan sees these three things as products of the same action or series of actions, not as three distinct “ways.” Choice D is not the best answer because the passage offers no evidence that the quoted phrases refer to three unique elements of a proposal to resolve a crisis. It is more reasonable to infer from the passage that Jordan sees “diminution,” “subversion,” and “destruction” as differing degrees to which the Constitution could be undermined. Moreover, the passage suggests that Jordan sees these three things as products of the same action or series of actions, not as three distinct “parts.”
Choice A is the best answer. Both bird species studied modified their behavior in response to changes in their environment. The researchers described in Passage 1 “had gotten wild crows used to finding meat tidbits in holes in a log” (Passage 1, lines 14–15). In other words, the researchers had repeatedly placed meat in the log—that is, changed the crows’ environment—and the birds had responded by modifying their behavior, a point reinforced in Passage 1, line 15, which note that the birds began “checking the log reliably.” The ravens in Passage 2 act in analogous fashion, responding to the introduction of new objects in their environment by “pick[ing] them out at a rate of up to tens of thousands of times greater than background or previously contacted objects” (Passage 2, lines 20–21). Choice B is not the best answer because while there is some evidence that the ravens described in Passage 2 formed a bond with the author, going on walks with him and possibly viewing him as their “teacher,” there is no evidence that a similar bond formed between the researchers described in Passage 1 and the crows they studied. Indeed, these researchers “hid behind a blind” (Passage 1, line 16) in an effort to avoid contact with their subjects. Choice C is not the best answer because while crows’ tool manufacture is the central focus of the experiment described in Passage 1, there is no evidence that the ravens in Passage 2 did anything similar. Passage 1 does mention that “some ravens” use “seemingly insightful string-pulling solutions” (Passage 1, line 30), but nothing in Passage 2 suggests that the ravens in that particular study had or displayed tool-making abilities. Choice D is not the best answer because while there is some evidence that the ravens described in Passage 2 mimicked human behavior, going on walks with the author and possibly viewing him as their “teacher,” there is no evidence that the crows in Passage 1 did any mimicking. Passage 1, in fact, suggests that the ability of the crow to produce the meat-fishing tool was innate rather than a skill it had acquired from either humans or other birds.
Choice B is the best answer. Passage 1 opens with an explanation of Morgan’s canon and continues with a discussion of people’s expectations regarding animal intelligence. Taken together, the first two paragraphs indicate that despite cautions to the contrary, people still tend to look for humanlike levels of intelligence in many animals, including birds. These two paragraphs provide a framework in which to assess the work of Gray and Hunt, presented in the rest of the passage. The passage’s characterization of the experiment Gray and Hunt conduct, in which they observe a crow’s tool-making ability and to which Gray responds by trying and failing to mimic the bird’s behavior (“I had a go, and I couldn’t do it,” Passage 1, line 25), suggests that Shettleworth, quoted in the second paragraph, is at least partially correct in her assessment that “We somehow want to prove [birds] are as ‘smart’ as people” (Passage 1, lines 5–5). Choice A is not the best answer because while the reference to Morgan’s canon in the first paragraph offers a sort of historical background (given that the canon was published in 1894), the second paragraph describes people’s continuing expectations regarding animal intelligence. Furthermore, the fact that Gray and Hunt may share with other people the tendency to look for humanlike intelligence in many animals does not by itself establish that the main purpose of the first two paragraphs is to question the uniqueness of Gray and Hunt’s findings. Choice C is not the best answer because while the reference to Morgan’s canon in the first paragraph does introduce a scientific principle, the discussion in the second paragraph of people’s expectations regarding animal intelligence, as well as the passage’s characterization of Gray and Hunt’s experiment and how the researchers interpret the results, primarily suggest that people tend to violate the canon by attributing humanlike levels of intelligence to many animals. Choice D is not the best answer because although the first two paragraphs do present different perspectives, they are not seemingly or genuinely contradictory. The second paragraph, particularly the quotation from Shettleworth, serves mainly to qualify (not contradict) the position staked out in the first paragraph by suggesting that while Morgan’s canon is probably a sound principle, people still tend to project humanlike levels of intelligence onto many animals. Moreover, the experiment depicted in the rest of the passage primarily bears out Shettleworth’s claim that “We somehow want to prove [birds] are as ‘smart’ as people” (Passage 1, lines 5–5) and thus does not reconcile the perspectives found in the opening paragraphs.
Choice C is the best answer because the context makes clear that the kind of “exception” (line 26) Jordan describes should be narrowly constrained, or limited. As lines 27–29 indicate, the Federal Convention of 1787 “limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors, and discounted and opposed the term ‘maladministration,’” presumably because the term implied too broad a scope for the exception. Choice A is not the best answer because while “channeled” sometimes means “worn,” it would make no sense in context to say that the kind of “exception” (line 26) Jordan describes should be narrowly worn. Choice B is not the best answer because while “channeled” sometimes means “sent,” it would make no sense in context to say that the kind of “exception” (line 26) Jordan describes should be narrowly sent. Choice D is not the best answer because while “channeled” sometimes means “siphoned,” it would make no sense in context to say that the kind of “exception” (line 26) Jordan describes should be narrowly siphoned.
