SAT Pastpaper with Solutions

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 1-10 are based on the following

passage.

This passage is adapted from Amy Tan, The Bonesetter’s

Daughter. ©2001 by Amy Tan.

At last, Old Widow Lau was done haggling with

the driver and we stepped inside Father’s shop. It was

north-facing, quite dim inside, and perhaps this was

Line why Father did not see us at first. He was busy with a

5 customer, a man who was distinguished-looking, like

the scholars of two decades before. The two men

were bent over a glass case, discussing the different

qualities of inksticks. Big Uncle welcomed us and

invited us to be seated. From his formal tone, I knew

10 he did not recognize who we were. So I called his

name in a shy voice. And he squinted at me, then

laughed and announced our arrival to Little Uncle,

who apologized many times for not rushing over

sooner to greet us. They rushed us to be seated at one

15 of two tea tables for customers. Old Widow Lau

refused their invitation three times, exclaiming that

my father and uncles must be too busy for visitors.

She made weak efforts to leave. On the fourth

insistence, we finally sat. Then Little Uncle brought

20 us hot tea and sweet oranges, as well as bamboo

latticework fans with which to cool ourselves.

I tried to notice everything so I could later tell

GaoLing what I had seen, and tease out her envy. The

floors of the shop were of dark wood, polished and

25 clean, no dirty footprints, even though this was

during the dustiest part of the summer. And along

the walls were display cases made of wood and glass.

The glass was very shiny and not one pane was

broken. Within those glass cases were our silk-

30 wrapped boxes, all our hard work. They looked so

much nicer than they had in the ink-making studio

at Immortal Heart village.

I saw that Father had opened several of the boxes.

He set sticks and cakes and other shapes on a silk

35 cloth covering a glass case that served as a table on

which he and the customer leaned. First he pointed

to a stick with a top shaped like a fairy boat and said

with graceful importance, “Your writing will flow as

smoothly as a keel cutting through a glassy lake.”

40 He picked up a bird shape: “Your mind will soar into

the clouds of higher thought.” He waved toward a

row of ink cakes embellished with designs of peonies

and bamboo: “Your ledgers will blossom into

abundance while bamboo surrounds your quiet

45 mind.”

As he said this, Precious Auntie came back into

mind. I was remembering how she taught me that

everything, even ink, had a purpose and a meaning:

Good ink cannot be the quick kind, ready to pour out

50 of a bottle. You can never be an artist if your work

comes without effort. That is the problem of modern

ink from a bottle. You do not have to think. You

simply write what is swimming on the top of your

brain. And the top is nothing but pond scum, dead

55 leaves, and mosquito spawn. But when you push an

inkstick along an inkstone, you take the first step to

cleansing your mind and your heart. You push and

you ask yourself, What are my intentions? What is in

my heart that matches my mind?

I remembered this, and yet that day in the ink

shop, I listened to what Father was saying, and his

words became far more important than anything

Precious Auntie had thought. “Look here,” Father

said to his customer, and I looked. He held up an

65 inkstick and rotated it in the light. “See? It’s the right

hue, purple-black, not brown or gray like the cheap

brands you might find down the street. And listen to

this.” And I heard a sound as clean and pure as a

small silver bell. “The high-pitched tone tells you that

70 the soot is very fine, as smooth as the sliding banks of

old rivers. And the scent—can you smell the balance

of strength and delicacy, the musical notes of the

ink’s perfume? Expensive, and everyone who sees

you using it will know that it was well worth the high

75 price.”

I was very proud to hear Father speak of our

family’s ink this way

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 11-20 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from “How the Web Affects
Memory.” ©2011 by Harvard Magazine Inc.
Search engines have changed the way we use the
Internet, putting vast sources of information just a
few clicks away. But Harvard professor of psychology
Line Daniel Wegner’s recent research proves that
5 websites—and the Internet—are changing much
more than technology itself. They are changing the
way our memories function.
Wegner’s latest study, “Google Effects on
Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having
10 Information at Our Fingertips,” shows that when
people have access to search engines, they remember
fewer facts and less information because they know
they can rely on “search” as a readily available
shortcut.
15 Wegner, the senior author of the study, believes
the new findings show that the Internet has become
part of a transactive memory source, a method by
which our brains compartmentalize information.
First hypothesized by Wegner in 1985, transactive
20 memory exists in many forms, as when a husband
relies on his wife to remember a relative’s birthday.
“[It is] this whole network of memory where you
don’t have to remember everything in the world
yourself,” he says. “You just have to remember who
25 knows it.” Now computers and technology as well
are becoming virtual extensions of our memory.
The idea validates habits already forming in our
daily lives. Cell phones have become the primary
location for phone numbers. GPS devices in cars
30 remove the need to memorize directions.
Wegner points out that we never have to stretch our
memories too far to remember the name of an
obscure movie actor or the capital of Kyrgyzstan—we
just type our questions into Google. “We become
35 part of the Internet in a way,” he says. “We become
part of the system and we end up trusting it.”
Working with researchers Betsy Sparrow of
Columbia University and Jenny Liu of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Wegner conducted four   experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon, using
various forms of memory recall to test reliance on
computers. In the first experiment, participants
demonstrated that they were more likely to think of
computer terms like “Yahoo” or “Google” after being
45 asked a set of difficult trivia questions. In two other
experiments, participants were asked to type a
collection of readily memorable statements, such as
“An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.” Half the
subjects were told that their work would be saved to a
50 computer; the other half were informed that the
statements would be erased. In subsequent memory
testing, participants who were told their work would
not be saved were best at recalling the statements. In
a fourth experiment, participants typed into a
55 computer statements they were told would be saved
in specific folders. Next, they were asked to recall the
statements. Finally, they were given cues to the
wording and asked to name the folders where the
statements were stored. The participants proved
60 better able to recall the folder locations than the
statements themselves.
Wegner concedes that questions remain about
whether dependence on computers will affect
memories negatively: “Nobody knows now what the
65 effects are of these tools on logical thinking.”
Students who have trouble remembering distinct
facts, for example, may struggle to employ those facts
in critical thinking. But he believes that the situation
overall is beneficial, likening dependence on
70 computers to dependence on a mechanical hand or
other prosthetic device.
And even though we may not be taxing our
memories to recall distinct facts, we are still using
them to consider where the facts are located and how
75 to access them. “We still have to remember things,”
Wegner explains. “We’re just remembering a
different range of things.” He believes his study will
lead to further research into understanding computer
dependence, and looks forward to tracing the extent
80 of human interdependence with the computer
world—pinpointing the “movable dividing line
between us and our computers in cyber networks.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 21-31 are based on the following
passage and supplementary material.
This passage is adapted from Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy:
What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We
Live. ©2013 by Marlene Zuk.
A female guppy can be sexually mature at two
months of age and have her first babies just a month
later. This unstinting rate of reproduction makes
Line guppies ideally suited for studying the rate of
5 evolution, and David Reznick, a biologist at UC
Riverside, has been doing exactly that for the last few
decades.
People usually think of guppies as colorful
aquarium fish, but they also have a life in the real
10 world, inhabiting streams and rivers in tropical
places like Trinidad, where Reznick has done his
fieldwork. Guppies can experience different kinds of
conditions depending on the luck of the draw.
A lucky guppy is born above a waterfall or a set of
15 rapids, which keep out the predatory fish called pike
cichlids found in calmer downstream waters. As you
might expect, the guppy mortality rate—that is, the
proportion of individuals that die—is much higher in
the sites with the rapacious cichlids than in those
20 without them.
Reznick has shown that if you bring the fish into
the lab and let them breed there, the guppies from
the sites with many predators become sexually
mature when they are younger and smaller than do
25 the guppies from the predator-free sites. In addition,
the litters of baby guppies produced by mothers from
the high-risk streams are larger, but each individual
baby is smaller than those produced by their
counterparts. The disparity makes sense because if
30 you are at risk of being eaten, being able to have
babies sooner, and spreading your energy reserves
over a lot of them, makes it more likely that you will
manage to pass on some of your genes before you
meet your fate. Reznick and other scientists also
35 demonstrated that these traits are controlled by the
guppies’ genes, not by the environment in which they
grow up.
How quickly, though, could these differences in
how the two kinds of guppies lived their lives have
40 evolved? Because there are numerous tributaries of
the streams in Trinidad, with guppies living in some
but not all of them, Reznick realized that he could, as
he put it in a 2008 paper, “treat streams like giant test
tubes by introducing guppies or predators” to places
45 they had not originally occurred, and then watch as  natural selection acted on the guppies. This kind of
real-world manipulation of nature is called
“experimental evolution,” and it is growing
increasingly popular among scientists working with
50 organisms that reproduce quickly enough for
humans to be able to see the outcome within our
lifetimes.
Along with his students and colleagues, Reznick
removed groups of guppies from their predator-
55 ridden lives below the waterfall and released them
into previously guppy-free streams above the falls.
Although small predatory killifish occurred in these
new sites, these fish do not pose anything close to the
danger of the cichlids. Then the scientists waited for
60 nature to do its work, and they brought the
descendants of the transplanted fish back to the lab
to examine their reproduction. After just eleven
years, the guppies released in the new streams had
evolved to mature later, and have fewer, bigger
65 offspring in each litter, just like the guppies that
naturally occurred in the cichlid-free streams.
Other studies of guppies in Trinidad have shown
evolutionary change in as few as two and a half years,
or a little over four generations, with more time
70 required for genetic shifts in traits such as the ability
to form schools and less time for changes in the
colorful spots and stripes on a male’s body.









Figures adapted from David N. Reznick, Cameron K. Ghalambor,
and Kevin Crooks, “Experimental Studies of Evolution in Guppies: A
Model for Understanding the Evolutionary Consequences of
Predator Removal in Natural Communities.” ©2007 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 32-42 are based on the following
passage.
This passage is adapted from a speech delivered in 1838 by
Sara T. Smith at the Second Anti-Slavery Convention of
American Women.
We are told that it is not within the “province of
woman,” to discuss the subject of slavery; that it is a
“political question,” and we are “stepping out of our
Line sphere,” when we take part in its discussion. It is not
5 true that it is merely a political question, it is likewise
a question of justice, of humanity, of morality, of
religion; a question which, while it involves
considerations of immense importance to the welfare
and prosperity of our country, enters deeply into the
10 home-concerns, the every-day feelings of millions of
our fellow beings. Whether the laborer shall receive
the reward of his labor, or be driven daily to
unrequited toil—whether he shall walk erect in the
dignity of conscious manhood, or be reckoned
15 among the beasts which perish—whether his bones
and sinews shall be his own, or another’s—whether
his child shall receive the protection of its natural
guardian, or be ranked among the live-stock of the
estate, to be disposed of as the caprice or interest of
20 the master may dictate—. . . these considerations are
all involved in the question of liberty or slavery.
And is a subject comprehending interests of such
magnitude, merely a “political question,” and one in
which woman “can take no part without losing
25 something of the modesty and gentleness which are
her most appropriate ornaments”? May not the
“ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” exist with an
upright mind and enlightened intellect, and must
woman necessarily be less gentle because her heart is
30 open to the claims of humanity, or less modest
because she feels for the degradation of her enslaved
sisters, and would stretch forth her hand for their
rescue?
By the Constitution of the United States, the
35 whole physical power of the North is pledged for the
suppression of domestic insurrections, and should
the slaves, maddened by oppression, endeavor to
shake off the yoke of the taskmaster, the men of the
North are bound to make common cause with the
40 tyrant, and put down, at the point of the bayonet,
every effort on the part of the slave, for the
attainment of his freedom. And when the father,
husband, son, and brother shall have left their homes
to mingle in the unholy warfare, “to become the
45 executioners of their brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands,”1 will the mother, wife, daughter, and
sister feel that they have no interest in this subject?
Will it be easy to convince them that it is no concern
of theirs, that their homes are rendered desolate, and
50 their habitations the abodes of wretchedness?
Surely this consideration is of itself sufficient to
arouse the slumbering energies of woman, for the
overthrow of a system which thus threatens to lay in
ruins the fabric of her domestic happiness; and she
55 will not be deterred from the performance of her
duty to herself, her family, and her country, by the
cry of political question.
But admitting it to be a political question, have we
no interest in the welfare of our country? May we not
60 permit a thought to stray beyond the narrow limits of
our own family circle, and of the present hour? May
we not breathe a sigh over the miseries of our
countrymen, nor utter a word of remonstrance
against the unjust laws that are crushing them to the
65 earth? Must we witness “the headlong rage or
heedless folly,” with which our nation is rushing
onward to destruction, and not seek to arrest its
downward course? Shall we silently behold the land
which we love with all the heart-warm affection of
70 children, rendered a hissing and a reproach
throughout the world, by this system which is already
tolling the death-bell of her decease among the
nations? No: the events of the last two years have cast
their dark shadows before, overclouding the bright
75 prospects of the future, and shrouding the destinies
of our country in more than midnight gloom, and we
cannot remain inactive. Our country is as dear to us
as to the proudest statesman, and the more closely
our hearts cling to “our altars and our homes,” the
80 more fervent are our aspirations that every
inhabitant of our land may be protected in his
fireside enjoyments by just and equal laws; that the
foot of the tyrant may no longer invade the domestic
sanctuary, nor his hand tear asunder those whom
85 God himself has united by the most holy ties. Let our
course, then, still be onward!

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply

Questions 43-52 are based on the following
passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from Brian Handwerk, “A New
Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria.”
©2015 by Smithsonian Institution. Passage 2 is adapted
from David Livermore, “This New Antibiotic Is Cause for
Celebration—and Caution.” ©2015 by Telegraph Media
Group Limited.
Passage 1
“Pathogens are acquiring resistance faster than we
can introduce new antibiotics, and this is causing a
human health crisis,” says biochemist Kim Lewis of
Line Northeastern University.
5 Lewis is part of a team that recently unveiled a
promising antibiotic, born from a new way to tap the
powers of soil microorganisms. In animal tests,
teixobactin proved effective at killing off a wide
variety of disease-causing bacteria—even those that
10 have developed immunity to other drugs. The
scientists’ best efforts to create mutant bacteria with
resistance to the drug failed, meaning teixobactin
could function effectively for decades before
pathogens naturally evolve resistance to it.
15 Natural microbial substances from soil bacteria
and fungi have been at the root of most antibiotic
drug development during the past century. But only
about one percent of these organisms can be grown
in a lab. The rest, in staggering numbers, have
20 remained uncultured and of limited use to medical
science, until now. “Instead of trying to figure out the
ideal conditions for each and every one of the
millions of organisms out there in the environment,
to allow them to grow in the lab, we simply grow
25 them in their natural environment where they
already have the conditions they need for growth,”
Lewis says.
To do this, the team designed a gadget that
sandwiches a soil sample between two membranes,
30 each perforated with pores that allow molecules like
nutrients to diffuse through but don’t allow the
passage of cells. “We just use it to trick the bacteria
into thinking that they are in their natural
environment,” Lewis says.
35 The team isolated 10,000 strains of uncultured soil
bacteria and prepared extracts from them that could
be tested against nasty pathogenic bacteria.
Teixobactin emerged as the most promising drug.
Mice infected with bacteria that cause upper respiratory tract infections (including Staphylococcus
aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) were treated
with teixobactin, and the drug knocked out the
infections with no noticeable toxic effects.
It’s likely that teixobactin is effective because of
45 the way it targets disease: The drug breaks down
bacterial cell walls by attacking the lipid molecules
that the cell creates organically. Many other
antibiotics target the bacteria’s proteins, and the
genes that encode those proteins can mutate to
50 produce different structures.
Passage 2
Many good antibiotic families—penicillin,
streptomycin, tetracycline—come from soil fungi
and bacteria and it has long been suspected that, if
we could grow more types of bacteria from soil—or
55 from exotic environments, such as deep
oceans—then we might find new natural antibiotics.
In a recent study, researchers [Kim Lewis and others]
found that they could isolate and grow individual soil
bacteria—including types that can’t normally be
60 grown in the laboratory—in soil itself, which
supplied critical nutrients and minerals. Once the
bacteria reached a critical mass they could be
transferred to the lab and their cultivation continued.
This simple and elegant methodology is their most
65 important finding to my mind, for it opens a gateway
to cultivating a wealth of potentially antibioticproducing bacteria that have never been grown
before.
The first new antibiotic that they’ve found by this
70 approach, teixobactin, from a bacterium called
Eleftheria terrae, is less exciting to my mind, though
it doesn’t look bad. Teixobactin killed Gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, in the laboratory, and
cured experimental infection in mice. It also killed
75 the tuberculosis bacterium, which is important
because there is a real problem with resistant
tuberculosis in the developing world. It was also
difficult to select teixobactin resistance.
So, what are my caveats? Well, I see three. First,
80 teixobactin isn’t a potential panacea. It doesn’t kill
the Gram-negative opportunists as it is too big to
cross their complex cell wall. Secondly, scaling to
commercial manufacture will be challenging, since
the bacteria making the antibiotic are so difficult to
85 grow. And, thirdly, it’s early days yet. As with any
antibiotic, teixobactin now faces the long haul of
clinical trials: Phase I to see what dose you can safely
give the patient, Phase II to see if it cures infections,and Phase III to compare its efficacy to that of
90 “standard of care treatment.” That’s going to take
five years and £500 million and these are numbers we
must find ways to reduce (while not compromising
safety) if we’re to keep ahead of bacteria, which can
evolve far more swiftly and cheaply