Reading.

Research shows that some dinosaurs likely dealt with respiratory illnesses with symptoms similar to the common cold is the correct answer. This answer option contains the main idea of the paragraph, which includes the discovery that dinosaurs likely had respiratory illnesses comparable to the common cold. This answer contains the main idea of the paragraph without providing any irrelevant supporting details. Research shows that the Aspergillus fungus is most likely the reason why dinosaurs may have been afflicted with respiratory illnesses. This is incorrect. The answer option provides an irrelevant supporting detail about the Aspergillus fungus, which is not part of the paragraph’s main idea involving the research study and its findings. Dinosaurs with longer necks were more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, most notably those involving an airborne fungus. This is incorrect. This statement does not provide the main idea of the paragraph because it is a supporting detail. The statement, “Although researchers have not yet pinpointed the exact source of the infection, one hypothesis posits that it is the Aspergillus fungus, which infects reptiles and birds to this day,” shows that the source of the infection has not been proven. Additionally, we cannot say with certainty that the fungus was airborne, so it would not be the best or the most credible information to include in the main idea. A recent study found that Diplodocid dinosaurs breathed through sacs that connected directly to the respiratory system. This is incorrect. Although the paragraph discusses a recent study along with information regarding how Diplodocid dinosaurs breathed, this piece of information is not the main finding of the study according to the information given in the paragraph. Rather, it is an irrelevant supporting detail that provides more insight into this particular type of dinosaur.

The anatomy of the Diplodocid dinosaur had an impact on how it drew in and transported air to the rest of its body is the correct answer. The statement, “Due to its size, this type of dinosaur breathed in air through sacs in its neck, which were directly connected to its respiratory system”, proves this supporting detail to be correct.  Fossil remains prove that Diplodocid dinosaurs had a harder time breathing when compared to other dinosaurs. This is incorrect. The statement is not necessarily true. The paragraph tells us that the fossil remains of one Diplodocid “proved that a pathogen had infected its lungs and respiratory system”. The information does not compare the Diplodocid to any other dinosaur, so we cannot logically infer that they had a harder time breathing than other dinosaurs. Compared to present day, the Aspergillus fungus was more prevalent on Earth when dinosaurs were alive. This is incorrect. When it comes to the prevalence of this fungus, the text only states that “…one hypothesis posits that it is the Aspergillus fungus, which infects reptiles and birds to this day”. This shows that the fungus still exists, but we cannot state that it was more prevalent when dinosaurs were alive. The Diplodocid dinosaur was more susceptible to illness due to its diet of mostly plants and vegetation. This is incorrect. The text tells us that the Diplodocid was “a large herbivore with a long neck”, which means that it ate only plants. However, the text does not say anything about why the remains of the Diplodocid were infected with the pathogen.

Although the reason is unknown, a discovery has shown that at least one Diplodocid dinosaur was infected by a pathogen that attacked its respiratory system, producing symptoms similar to the common cold is the correct answer. This statement is the best summary of the passage because it includes the main idea and key details. The statement tells us about a discovery and what it reveals about at least one Diplodocid dinosaur. It includes the necessary information about how a pathogen of some sort attacked its respiratory system and produced symptoms similar to the common cold. All of these key elements make up the most important parts of the passage. Thanks to evidence from a recent excavation in Montana, researchers have found that an herbivore dinosaur with a long neck suffered from a respiratory illness, likely due to how it inhaled air through sacs on its neck. This is incorrect. Although nothing in the statement is completely untrue, this option focuses too heavily on the supporting details instead of the key ideas presented in the paragraph. Additionally, the last part of the statement, which focuses on how the dinosaur suffered from a respiratory illness cannot be proven from the text alone.   Fossil evidence uncovered in Montana shows that the Aspergillus fungus may have been present on Earth before Homo sapiens and could have been the cause of a respiratory illness infecting certain dinosaurs. This is incorrect. Nothing in this statement is completely inaccurate, but it focuses too heavily on the supporting details rather than including the key ideas. For instance, this option does not include the fact that the study was about a Diplodocid dinosaur, which is a key point, but it does include information about the Aspergillus fungus, which is only included in the passage as a supporting detail in the text. A research study hints at the fact that a pathogen, perhaps stemming from the Aspergillus fungus, infected dinosaurs and may have ultimately been responsible for certain illnesses or early deaths. This is incorrect. Nothing in this statement is completely inaccurate, but it focuses too heavily on the supporting details rather than including the key ideas. For instance, this option does not even include the fact that the study was about a Diplodocid dinosaur, which is a key point, but it does include information about the Aspergillus fungus, which is only included in the passage as a supporting detail in the text and speculation.

Diagnosing a rare disease with certainty can be problematic due to the scarcity of information available as well as a lack of consensus within the healthcare community is the correct answer. It offers the most comprehensive summary of the passage and touches on the fact that diagnosing a rare disease with certainty can be difficult. The author goes on to posit about how this problem can stem from a lack of information and the fact that the health care community does not necessarily agree on this topic. The differences in the mere definition of what a rare disease is can lead to difficulties in diagnoses. This is incorrect. Although the author mentions the difficulties in diagnosing a rare disease, it is only used as a supporting detail. This option is not general enough to be considered an adequate summary. Rather than dismissing a patient’s concerns because of a lack of evidence, primary care physicians should be a source of support and help alleviate their patients’ worries over healthcare issues. This is incorrect. Although the author discusses how those in the health care community, mainly general practitioners, should act, it is only a supporting detail. This option is not general enough to be considered an adequate summary because it lacks the main idea. Currently, there are approximately seven thousand rare diseases affecting people all over the world, and they affect nearly thirty million Americans alone. This is incorrect. The answer option is too specific to be considered a summary statement. Moreover, the detailed information is only used as a supporting detail that provides data about the prevalence of rare diseases.

There is a higher chance that a disease could be considered rare under the United States’ definition as compared to that of the European Union is the correct answer. We can make this inference through the statement, “In the United States, for example, a disease is considered rare if it affects fewer than 200,000 people,” along with the statement, “In the European Union, however, a disease is only defined as rare if it affects fewer than one in two thousand people”. The definition used in the United States encompasses a larger number of people, which could lead us to infer that there is a higher chance of a disease being classified as rare under this definition. Rare diseases are the most prevalent in the United States when compared to other countries. This is incorrect. We cannot logically infer this from the information presented in the passage. First, the passage only provides direct information regarding Americans, in that rare diseases “affect nearly thirty million Americans alone.”  Although this is quite a large number, it does not provide any information about every (or any) other countries’ statistics. We cannot make a logical inference about rare diseases being the most prevalent in the United States. If everyone in the healthcare community agreed on the definition of a rare disease, diagnosing patients would no longer pose any problems. This is incorrect. The statement, “Additionally, diagnosing a rare disease with certainty can be problematic due to the scarcity of information available as well as a lack of consensus within the healthcare community,” shows that there are two problems in diagnosing a rare disease. Using this piece of information, we can logically infer that the scarcity of information would still pose problems during diagnosis, even if everyone in the healthcare community were to agree on one set definition. Nothing in the passage leads us to correctly infer that a consensus would resolve all diagnostic problems.  Most primary care physicians do not provide adequate support to patients who have a rare disease. This is incorrect. We cannot logically infer this from the information in the passage. The author states, “Rather than dismissing a patient’s concerns because of a lack of evidence, primary care physicians should be a source of support and help alleviate their patients’ healthcare issues the best they can,” but this answer choice is more of an opinion rather than an inference. The author does not provide evidence that most primary care physicians do not provide enough support to those suffering from a rare disease. Instead, the author provides their opinion on what should be done.

General practitioners must always be supportive of patients suffering from rare diseases is the correct answer. The statement is an opinion because not everyone may agree that general practitioners need to “always be supportive” of patients.  Some people might believe that general practitioners need to be thorough or accurate, rather than always “supportive.”  Additionally, the words, “must always” signify an opinion. There is a scarcity of readily available information when it comes to rare diseases. This is incorrect. This statement is a fact rather than an opinion because it can be proven as true. The author explains, “Diagnosing a rare disease with certainty can be problematic due to the scarcity of information available as well as a lack of consensus within the healthcare community.” There are nearly seven thousand different types of rare diseases. This is incorrect. It is a fact because it can be proven as true, based on information that is available regarding rare diseases. This answer choice presents data associated with the ideas in this paragraph. Data is regarded as fact. Depending on where people are located, their understanding of a rare disease could change. This is incorrect. It is a fact because it can be proven true. The text  tells us that the United States’ definition is relatively broader since it defines a rare disease as “affecting fewer than 200,000 people,” whereas the European Union’s definition drops this number to “fewer than 2,000 people”.

Ideas that challenged existing theories at the time were heavily investigated and abolished if they contradicted existing religious teachings is the correct answer. The information in the passage leads us to logically infer this idea. The passage states, “His scientific findings and ideas showing that the Sun was actually the center of the universe ultimately caused him to become the target of the Inquisition, an official religious investigation against ideas that contradicted the Catholic church.” This information allows us to logically conclude that such theories were heavily investigated. The fact that “most of Galileo’s writings were banned and he spent the remainder of his life in prison” also indicates that such ideas would be abolished. Another statement that confirms this inference is, “Galileo was not the only scholar to have undergone this punishment for challenging the status quo”. This shows that people other than Galileo also underwent the same treatment. Ideas that contradicted the existing ideology were generally accepted, as long as they had scientific evidence to support them. This is incorrect. It cannot be logically concluded from the information provided in the passage. The statement, “His scientific findings and ideas showing that the Sun was actually the center of the universe ultimately caused him to become the target of the Inquisition, an official religious investigation against ideas that contradicted the Catholic church,” shows us that Galileo did in fact have scientific evidence to support his new ideas. Even so, his ideas were heavily questioned and he was punished. Given this information, we cannot infer that these ideas were generally accepted. Both the scientific and religious communities were receptive to new ideas as a way to better understand the world around them. This is incorrect. The author mentions that Galileo had scientific evidence to back his claims, but nothing is said regarding the scientific community as a whole. There is no evidence in the passage that can lead us to infer how receptive the scientific community was of these ideas. In any case, the passage tells us that the Inquisition, “an official religious investigation against ideas that contradicted the Catholic church,” was used. This implies that the religious communities were probably not receptive to new ideas. While the scientific community was accepting of new ideas, the religious community was more powerful and better able to eradicate contradictory ideologies. This is incorrect. The author mentions that Galileo had scientific evidence to back his claims, but nothing is said regarding the scientific community as a whole. There is no evidence in the passage that can lead us to infer anything about how receptive the scientific community was to new ideas. Although the passage implies that the religious community was powerful, the first half of this answer option cannot be inferred.

To persuade the reader that Galileo was a great example of a “Renaissance Man” who was unjustly treated is the correct answer. The author uses clear language regarding their opinion of Galileo, which impacts the purpose of the passage. Sentences such as, “Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer, physicist, and engineer is perhaps the best example of a true Renaissance Man,” and, “Thankfully,  justice has finally been served to a great ‘Renaissance Man’,” show that the author wants to persuade the readers of Galileo’s greatness. The phrase “unjust and harsh treatment” also provides a clear example of how the author feels about Galileo’s punishment. To inform readers about the Inquisition during the Renaissance period. This is incorrect. Although the author includes information about the Inquisition, it is only used as a supporting detail in the paragraph. The overall purpose of the passage involves persuading the reader of Galileo’s status as a “Renaissance Man ” and does not provide sufficient relevant evidence about the specifics of the Inquisition. To satirize the way people reacted to Galileo’s scientific theories. This is incorrect. To satirize means to mock. Although the author makes it clear that they disagree with the reactions that Galileo’s scientific theories received, nothing in the passage is satirized. Instead, the purpose is to persuade readers about Galileo’s status as a “Renaissance Man”. To persuade readers to stand up to injustice within their communities. This is incorrect. Although the purpose of the passage is to persuade the reader, the author wants to persuade the reader to view Galileo as a great “Renaissance Man”. Nothing in the passage mentions current injustices within present-day communities.

Galileo Galilei and other similar scholars were treated unfairly for their revolutionary ideas during the Renaissance period is the correct answer. The author would agree with this statement because they briefly mention that “Galileo was not the only scholar to have undergone this punishment”. The author also describes the punishment as “unjust and harsh”. Therefore,  the author would likely agree with the fact that Galileo and other scholars were treated unfairly during the Renaissance period.   The fact that Galileo’s scientific idea regarding the Sun’s position is now accepted as truth makes up for his unjust treatment during the Renaissance period. This is incorrect. Although the author maintains the idea that the Church’s treatment of Galileo was unjust, the author provides no information about how the current acceptance of Galileo’s ideas “makes up for his unjust treatment”. If Galileo’s ideas had been accepted while he was alive, the world would have been much different today. This is incorrect. Although the author believes that Galileo’s ideas were important, nothing about the impact of such ideas on current society is mentioned. The author mentions that Galileo’s treatment was unjust but does not relate this to how the world would have been different today. The Inquisition was a historical period in which the highest number of scholars were unjustly imprisoned. This is incorrect. Although the author describes the treatment of Galileo during the Inquisition as “unjust” and mentions that other scholars underwent the same treatment, nothing in the passage suggests that the Inquisition was the historical period with the “highest” number of unjustly imprisoned scholars. In other words, the author does not quantify the number of scholars imprisoned during the Inquisition.

Social conditioning and evolutionary tendencies play a part in why certain scary movies are frightening or sought-after is the correct answer. The main idea of this passage revolves around the fact that social conditioning and evolution are involved in why people get scared by horror films. The statement, “They believe that certain visual stimuli consistently produce intense reactions from audiences, based on evolutionary predispositions and social conditioning,” proves this to be true. The rest of the passage elaborates on this main idea by providing specific examples. Scary movies have been getting more popular, despite the common myth that they are only popular during Halloween. This is incorrect. The author includes information about the growing popularity of horror movies as a way to pique the reader’s interest about the topic of  the passage. This answer choice is simply a supporting piece of information rather than the main idea. Oftentimes, people remember intense experiences from their childhood, and they recall them at certain moments in life. This is incorrect.  Although this is technically true, it is not the main idea of the passage and omits the topic: horror movies.. This piece of information is used as a supporting detail regarding social conditioning and how it plays a part in people’s reactions to scary movies. Horror movies are popular because they employ more interesting techniques that produce intense reactions, such as adding in gory scenes and insects. This is incorrect. This is a good answer, but it is not the best answer. This statement does not include information about two key ideas presented by the author: social conditioning and human tendencies. Instead, this statement highlights supporting details (gory scenes and insects).

They could be connected to situations that audiences recall from an earlier time in life, thus producing powerful reactions is the correct answer. The statement, “Certain things trigger a ‘fight or flight’ response, which is likely rooted in our earliest memories and spans a wide range of topics and situations,” proves this to be correct. The author then uses the example of a scene with blood and describes how it could subconsciously trigger a “fight or flight” response. The passage suggests that these elements are likely to produce a powerful reaction because of the audience’s connection to them.  Starting from the first horror movie decades ago, they have always been added into the plot for effect. This is incorrect. Nothing in the passage explains how the very first horror movies implemented these elements, so we cannot confirm this as true. These elements involve blood and gore, which are scary to all viewers. This is incorrect. Although the passage uses “blood and gore” as an example, relating it to something like one’s experience of getting “a scraped knee” in childhood, we cannot say with certainty that these elements are scary to “all viewers”. The passage does not prove or disprove this idea. After decades of being used in numerous films, they will likely be seen as unoriginal and clichéd in the near future. This is incorrect. There is no evidence in the passage that proves this to be true. If anything, the statement, “While using blood and spiders in movies might seem overdone and predictable, science shows that these aspects might never stop being scary,” implies otherwise.

So small and unimportant that it is not worth considering is the correct answer. The context clues that verify this are located in the sentence after the word “negligible”. The statement, “For example, even though less than one-tenth of a percent of spiders have been responsible for human deaths, they have been used as scare tactics in movies for decades,” shows that the threat of dying from a spider is very small. Significantly important to a certain degree This is incorrect. This definition of “negligible” is the opposite of this answer option. The statement, “For example, even though less than one-tenth of a percent of spiders have been responsible for human deaths, they have been used as scare tactics in movies for decades,” provides an example to showcase the definition. In this case, the correct definition means that the threat of dying from a spider is not worth considering because it rarely happens. Failing to take proper care of something This is incorrect. This definition pertains to the word “negligent”, not “negligible”. In this case, the word “negligible” refers to something small and unimportant. Additionally, there is no evidence in the text to support the idea that proper care is not being taken. Completed to a satisfactory degree This is incorrect.  This definition has nothing to do with the word “negligible”, which refers to something small and unimportant. Additionally, there is no evidence in the text that supports the idea that the threats are complete or satisfactory.

The greater an athlete’s body mass is, the more difficult it could be for them to reduce the resistance of gravity in the air is the correct answer. The statement, “Ultimately, the interaction between the weight of the athlete’s body and the air naturally produces resistance, which eventually slows down the body’s movement in the air and brings it back to the ground,” shows that the weight of the athlete’s body has an effect on the body’s movement in the air. The resistance produced by the body and the air play a part in bringing the body’s movement back to the ground. With this in mind, it is correct to infer that the greater an athlete’s body mass, the more difficult it could be for them to reduce the resistance of gravity in the air. Working against gravity is the most challenging part of a ski jump. This is incorrect. The passage states that “gravity, lifting, and endurance are three physical concepts that play a large part in the success of an athlete’s ski jump”. The author does not highlight one element over the other. Although information about reducing the resistance of gravity is included later in the passage, the author does not state that it is the most challenging part. An athlete’s starting position on the springboard and beginning seconds of the jump does not necessarily have an impact on the outcome. This is incorrect. The statement, “The goal of ski jumpers is to strategically position the body, from the beginning until the end of the routine, in order to maximize lift and reduce resistance as much as possible,” leads us to infer the opposite. The starting position plays a part in the outcome as well as all stages of the jump. When it comes to ski jumping, preparatory training is not as important as an athlete’s body mass. This is incorrect. The statement, “Of course, an athlete cannot defy gravitational force, no matter how much they have trained. However, they can compensate for the force by aiming to lift themselves higher,” implies that “aiming to lift themselves higher” is a skill that ski-jumpers must prepare for beforehand. In any case, nothing in the passage suggests that one skill is more important than the other.

Concepts from physics and aerodynamics play a large part in the mechanics behind the sport of ski jumping, ranging from gravitational force to the resistance between the body and the air is the correct answer. The answer option contains information about how physics and aerodynamics affect ski jumping and mentions the most discussed concepts (gravitational force and resistance). Because of the role that physics and aerodynamics play in the sport of ski jumping, athletes must train consistently and devote their athletic careers to mastering strategic positions. This is incorrect. This answer option mentions the role of physics and aerodynamics but places too much emphasis on the fact that athletes must train consistently and devote their careers to the strategic positions of the sport. This detail is not mentioned in the passage and should not be present in the summary. Even though people are fascinated by the sport of ski jumping, they are probably not aware of the dedication and training it takes to master the sport, nor are they familiar with the aerodynamic mechanics behind the sport. This is incorrect. This answer provides details about just one statement in the passage, “Perhaps what most people do not think about, however, is how physics and aerodynamics play a part in all of this”. The author includes this statement as a transition from the popularity of the sport to the scientific mechanics behind it, but it is not a major part of the main idea of the passage. During the sport of ski jumping, resistance is produced when an athlete’s body hits the air, slowing down the movement of the jump. This is incorrect. Although the statement is accurate based on the information in the passage, it is not a comprehensive summary of the passage. This is just one of the scientific concepts that is explained in the passage. A better summary would include general information about how physics, gravity, and aerodynamics affect ski jumping.

Make up for is the correct answer The sentence in question is, “They can compensate for the force by aiming to lift themselves higher,” and the force described is a gravitational force.  The word “compensate” has a few different meanings, but the best meaning in this context is “make up for” since the athletes are balancing out the gravitational force by lifting themselves higher. Repay This is incorrect. Although this is technically a definition of the word “compensate”, it has to do with compensation in terms of paying someone (or something) for services rendered. In the paragraph, the sentence, “They can compensate for the force by aiming to lift themselves higher,” refers to how athletes “make up for” the gravitational force by lifting themselves higher. Overshoot This is incorrect. The definition of this word is “to go past an intended point” or to “exceed”. The sentence, “They can compensate for the force by aiming to lift themselves higher,” refers to how athletes “make up for” the gravitational force by lifting themselves higher, not how they exceed the force. Give back This is incorrect. Although this is technically a definition of the word, “compensate”, it has to do with restoring something lost to its proper owner. In the paragraph, the sentence, “They can compensate for the force by aiming to lift themselves higher,” refers to how athletes “make up for” the gravitational force by lifting themselves higher.