import { type PracticeQuestion } from "../../types/lesson";

export const CROSS_TEXT_EASY: PracticeQuestion[] = [
  {
    id: "02fd3da7",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Public policy researcher Anthony Fowler studied the history of elections in Australia, a country that requires citizens to vote. Fowler argues that requiring citizens to vote leads to a significant increase in voters who would otherwise not have the time or motivation to vote. Thus, election results in countries that require citizens to vote better reflect the preferences of the country as a whole. <br> <br>Text 2<br>Governments in democratic countries function better when more people vote. However, forcing people to vote may have negative consequences. Shane P. Singh and Jason Roy studied what happens when a country requires its citizens to vote. They found that when people feel forced to vote, they tend to spend less time looking for information about their choices when voting. As a result, votes from these voters may not reflect their actual preferences.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Singh and Roy (Text 2) most likely respond to the research discussed in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Only countries of a certain population size should implement mandatory voting.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "People who are forced to vote are likely to become politically engaged in other ways, such as volunteering or running for office.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Requiring people to vote does not necessarily lead to election outcomes that better represent the preferences of the country as a whole.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Countries that require voting must also make the process of voting easier for their citizens.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      'Choice C is the best answer. Text 1 claims that mandatory voting results in elections that "better reflect the preferences of the country." Singh and Roy disagree. They claim that more voters doesn’t equal more quality votes—instead, they argue that forced voting may lead to less-informed votes that "may not reflect <strong>voters’</strong> actual preferences."<br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither text mentions the population size of countries that require voting, or how that might affect election outcomes. Choice B is incorrect. Neither text discusses the effects of mandatory voting on other forms of political engagement. Choice D is incorrect. Neither text discusses the ease or difficulty of the voting process in countries that require voting.',
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "159ef46d",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Although food writing is one of the most widely read genres in the United States, literary scholars have long neglected it. And within this genre, cookbooks attract the least scholarly attention of all, regardless of how well written they may be. This is especially true of works dedicated to regional US cuisines, whose complexity and historical significance are often overlooked.<br> <br>Text 2<br>With her 1976 cookbook The Taste of Country Cooking, Edna Lewis popularized the refined Southern cooking she had grown up with in Freetown, an all-Black community in Virginia. She also set a new standard for cookbook writing: the recipes and memoir passages interspersing them are written in prose more elegant than that of most novels. Yet despite its inarguable value as a piece of writing, Lewis’s masterpiece has received almost no attention from literary scholars.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the two texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely regard the situation presented in the underlined sentence in Text 2?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "As typical, because scholars are dismissive of literary works that achieve popularity with the general public",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "As unsurprising, because scholars tend to overlook the literary value of food writing in general and of regional cookbooks in particular",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "As justifiable, because Lewis incorporated memoir into The Taste of Country Cooking, thus undermining its status as a cookbook",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "As inevitable, because The Taste of Country Cooking was marketed to readers of food writing and not to readers of other genres",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer. Text 1 states that literary scholars ignore regional cookbooks most of all, even when they have historical significance and are well written. So the author of Text 1 wouldn’t be surprised that scholars ignored Edna Lewis’s cookbook. <br>Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never suggests that scholars are dismissive of popular works in general. Instead, Text 1 says that scholars ignore food writing specifically, despite its popularity—and despite the fact that it can be historically significant and complex. Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never suggests that elements of other genres should be kept out of cookbooks. Choice D is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never discusses how food writing is or should be marketed.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "22105871",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>In a study of insect behavior, Samadi Galpayage and colleagues presented bumblebees with small wooden balls and observed many of the bees clinging to, rolling, and dragging the objects. The researchers provided no external rewards (such as food) to encourage these interactions. The bees simply appeared to be playing—and for no other reason than because they were having fun.<br>Text 2<br>Insects do not have cortexes or other brain areas associated with emotions in humans. Still, Galpayage and her team have shown that bumblebees may engage in play, possibly experiencing some kind of positive emotional state. Other studies have suggested that bees experience negative emotional states (for example, stress), but as Galpayage and her team have acknowledged, emotions in insects, if they do indeed exist, are likely very rudimentary.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined portion of Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By objecting that the bees were actually experiencing a negative feeling akin to stress rather than a positive feeling",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By arguing that some insects other than bumblebees may be capable of experiencing complex emotional states",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By pointing out that even humans sometimes struggle to have fun while engaging in play",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By noting that if the bees were truly playing, any positive feelings they may have experienced were probably quite basic",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. The author of Text 2 agrees with the author of Text 1 that bumblebees may engage in play and possibly experience some kind of positive emotional state. However, the author of Text 2 also qualifies this claim by stating that emotions in insects, if they do exist, are “likely very rudimentary.” <br>Choice A is incorrect. While Text 2 states that other studies might indicate “negative emotional states” in bees, it does not contradict the findings from the Galpayage study—that the bees might have been having fun. Choice B is incorrect. The author of Text 2 does not mention or imply that any insects, including bumblebees, are capable of experiencing complex emotional states. The author of Text 2 states that if insects do feel emotions, those emotions are “likely very rudimentary.” Choice C is incorrect. The author of Text 2 does not compare or contrast the behavior or emotions of insects and humans, and neither does the author of Text 1.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "2c50ed1a",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Literary scholars have struggled with the vastness of Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka’s collective works of drama (spanning over 20 plays in total). It is best, however, to understand Soyinka’s body of work as a dramatist chronologically. Soyinka’s progression as a playwright can be considered to fall into three periods, with each one representing a particular thematic and stylistic cohesion: the 1960s, the two decades between 1970 and 1990, and lastly, from roughly 1990 onwards. <br> <br>Text 2 <br>It is tempting to impose a linear sense of order on the expanse of Wole Soyinka’s body of work as a dramatist. However, critics who have considered Soyinka’s plays to fit neatly into three phases overlook potential commonalities in Soyinka’s work that span across these phases. Additionally, this view may discount significant differences in the styles and content of plays written around the same time.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view the study of Soyinka’s works of drama?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "While the author of Text 1 believes that thinking about Soyinka’s works of theater in phases is useful, the author of Text 2 views such an approach as limiting.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Although the author of Text 1 claims that Soyinka’s style as a dramatist has evolved over time, the author of Text 2 argues that Soyinka’s style has remained consistent throughout his career.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "The author of Text 1 considers Soyinka’s plays to showcase his strongest writing, whereas the author of Text 2 believes that Soyinka’s poetry is where he is most skilled.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "The author of Text 1 argues that Soyinka’s early plays were his most politically charged, whereas the author of Text 2 claims that Soyinka’s most recent plays are the most politicized.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. The author of Text 1 states that Soyinka’s progression as a playwright can be considered to fall into three periods, implying that this is a helpful way to understand his works. The author of Text 2, on the other hand, challenges this view and says that it overlooks potential commonalities and differences in Soyinka’s work across what Text 1 calls distinctive stylistic phases. <br>Choice B is incorrect. This choice overstates the central claim of Text 2. The author of Text 2 argues against the chronological progression supported in Text 1, but does not go so far as to say that Soyinka’s style remained consistent. In fact, Text 2 points out “significant differences in styles and content” among Soyinka’s plays. Choice C is incorrect. Neither of the texts mention Soyinka’s poetry, nor do they rank his dramatic writing relative to his other work. Choice D is incorrect. Neither text discusses the political aspects of Soyinka’s plays, nor do they make any claims about whether they have changed over time.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "5a4b147c",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>On April 26th, 1777, Sybil Ludington rode 40 miles by horse through Putnam County, New York, to gather up local militia. British forces were burning nearby Danbury, Connecticut, and Ludington wanted to rally rebel troops to meet them. Although she was only 16 years old at the time, her brave feat made Ludington one of the heroes of the American Revolution. Since then, Ludington has been widely celebrated, inspiring postage stamps, statues, and even children’s TV series. <br> <br>Text 2<br>Historian Paula D. Hunt researched the life and legacy of Sybil Ludington but found no evidence for her famous ride. Although many articles and books have been written about Ludington, Hunt believes writers may have been inventing details about Ludington as they retold her story. Ludington is revered by Americans today, but there simply isn’t a strong historical record of her heroic ride.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Sybil Ludington was crucial to the outcome of the Revolutionary War.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Historians have confirmed which route Sybil Ludington took.",
      },
      { label: "C", text: "Sybil Ludington was likely not a real person." },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Many people have come to admire the story of Sybil Ludington’s ride.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. Both authors agree that Ludington’s story has been widely celebrated and revered by Americans, even if they disagree on its accuracy. Text 1 states that Ludington has inspired postage stamps, statues, and TV series, and Text 2 states that many articles and books have been written about her. Thus, both authors acknowledge the popularity of Ludington’s story. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither author claims that Ludington had a significant impact on the war. Text 1 doesn’t mention how Ludington’s ride affected the war overall, and Text 2 suggests that Ludington’s ride may have been exaggerated or invented over time. Choice B is incorrect. Neither author claims that Ludington’s route has been verified by historians. Text 1 claims she rode 40 miles through Putnam County, but doesn’t cite any sources for this information, while Text 2 suggests the ride may not have even happened. Choice C is incorrect. This choice misreads text 2. Neither author claims that Ludington was not a real person, only that her ride may not have happened. Both authors seem to treat Ludington as a genuine historical figure.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "7b55e895",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Some animal species, like the leopard, can be found in many kinds of areas. On the other hand, tropical mountain bird species tend to be limited in the types of spaces they can call home. This is because many mountain bird species are only able to survive at very specific elevations. Over time, these species have likely become used to living at a specific temperature. Therefore, these species struggle to survive at elevations that are warmer or colder than they are used to.<br> <br>Text 2<br>A new study reviewed observations of nearly 3,000 bird species to understand why tropical mountain bird species live at specific elevations. They noted that when a mountain bird species was found in an area with many other bird species, it tended to inhabit much smaller geographic areas. It is thus likely that competition for resources with other species, not temperature, limits where these birds can live.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Tropical mountain bird species are restricted in where they can live.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Scientists have better tools to observe tropical mountain birds than they did in the past.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Little is known about how tropical mountain birds build their nests.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Tropical mountain bird species that live at high elevations tend to be genetically similar.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. Both texts state that tropical mountain bird species have limited ranges or habitats, although they disagree on the reason for this. Text 1 claims that temperature is the main factor that determines where these birds can live, while Text 2 claims that competition with other species is the main factor. However, both texts agree that these birds are not able to survive in many kinds of areas. <br>Choice B is incorrect. Neither text mentions the tools or methods that scientists use to observe these birds, either now or in the past. Choice C is incorrect. Neither text mentions anything about how these birds build their nests. Choice D is incorrect. Neither text provides any information about the genetic similarity of these birds, so we have no evidence that either author would agree with this statement.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "81da17d3",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Italian painters in the 1500s rarely depicted themselves in their work. Even more rare were self-portrait paintings that portrayed the artist as a painter. At the time, painting was not yet respected as a profession, so painters mostly chose to emphasize other qualities in their self-portraits, like their intellect or social status. In the city of Bologna, the first artist to depict themself painting was a man named Annibale Carracci. A painting of his from around 1585 shows Carracci in front of an easel holding a palette. <br> <br>Text 2<br>In their self-portraits, Bolognese artists typically avoided referring to the act of painting until the mid-1600s. However, Lavinia Fontana’s 1577 painting, Self-Portrait at the Keyboard, stands out as the earliest example of such a work by an artist from Bologna. Although the artist is depicted playing music, in the background, one can spot a painting easel by a window.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Carracci and Fontana were among the most well-respected painters in Bologna at the time.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "The depiction of Fontana in Self-Portrait at the Keyboard was intended to underscore the artist’s creativity.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Fontana likely inspired the reference to an easel and palette in Carracci’s painting.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Self-Portrait at the Keyboard was painted earlier than Carracci’s painting and also refers to the artist’s craft.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. The author of Text 2 states that Fontana’s painting, which depicts a painting easel in the background, was made in 1577, eight years before Carracci’s painting. Therefore, they might argue that Caracci was not “the first artist” to depict themself as a painter. <br>Choice A is incorrect. The texts don’t support this choice. Neither text mentions the reputation or status of either Carracci or Fontana. Choice B is incorrect. The author of Text 2 does not comment on the intention or meaning of Fontana’s self-depiction in Self-Portrait at the Keyboard. This choice also holds little connection to the underlined claim. Choice C is incorrect. The texts don’t support this choice. The author of Text 2 does not suggest any inspirational relationship between Fontana and Carracci. The author of Text 2 is concerned with showing that Fontana’s painting is the earliest example of an artist referring to painting in their self-portrait, but makes no mention of her influence on others.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "835d1ae6",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Historians studying pre-Inca Peru have looked to ceramic vessels to understand daily life among the Moche people. These mold-made sculptures present plants, animals, and human faces in precise ways—vessels representing human faces are so detailed that scholars have interpreted facial markings to represent scars and other skin irregularities. Some historians have even used these objects to identify potential skin diseases that may have afflicted people at the time.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Art historian and archaeologist Lisa Trever has argued that the interpretation of Moche “portrait” vessels as hyper-realistic portrayals of identifiable people may inadvertently disregard the creativity of the objects’ creators. Moche ceramic vessels, Trever argues, are artworks in which sculptors could free their imagination, using realistic objects and people around them as inspiration to explore more abstract concepts.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, what would Lisa Trever (Text 2) most likely say about the interpretation presented in the underlined portion of Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Depictions of human faces are significantly more realistic than depictions of plants and other animals are.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "It is likely that some depictions of human faces with extensive markings are intended to portray the same historical individual.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Some vessels may have been damaged during their excavation and thus provide little insight into Moche culture.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Markings on depictions of human faces are not necessarily intended to portray particular details about the physical appearance of individuals.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. Trever thinks that the “hyper-realistic portrayal of identifiable people” interpretation ignores the sculptors’ imagination and creativity. We can infer that Trevor thinks the facial markings on the sculptures may not have represented real skin blemishes on real people. <br>Choice A is incorrect. The text gives us no reason to think that Trever would respond to the underlined interpretation in this way. Neither text compares the depictions of human faces to the depictions of plants or animals, so we have no basis to draw this conclusion. Choice B is incorrect. The text gives us no reason to think that Trever would respond to the underlined interpretation in this way. There’s nothing in either text about multiple depictions representing the same person, so we have no basis to draw this conclusion. Choice C is incorrect. The text gives us no reason to think that Trever would respond to the underlined interpretation in this way. Neither text mentions the state of the vessels (damaged or intact), so we have no basis to draw this conclusion.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "88bb0f6f",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>A team led by Bernardo Strassburg has found that rewilding farmland (returning the land to its natural state) could help preserve biodiversity and offset carbon emissions. The amount of farmland that would need to be restored, they found, is remarkably low. Rewilding a mere 15% of the world’s current farmland would prevent 60% of expected species extinctions and help absorb nearly 299 gigatons of carbon dioxide—a clear win in the fight against the biodiversity and climate crises.<br> <br>Text 2<br>While Strassburg’s team’s findings certainly offer encouraging insight into the potential benefits of rewilding, it’s important to consider potential effects on global food supplies. The researchers suggest that to compensate for the loss of food-producing land, remaining farmland would need to produce even more food. Thus, policies focused on rewilding farmland must also address strategies for higher-yield farming.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view Strassburg’s team’s study?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "The author of Text 2 approaches the study’s findings with some caution, whereas the author of Text 1 is optimistic about the reported potential environmental benefits.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "The author of Text 2 claims that the percentage of farmland identified by Strassburg’s team is too low for rewilding to achieve meaningful results, whereas the author of Text 1 thinks the percentage is sufficient.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "The author of Text 2 believes that the results described by Strassburg’s team are achievable in the near future, whereas the author of Text 1 argues that they likely aren’t.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "The author of Text 2 focuses on rewilding’s effect on carbon emissions, whereas the author of Text 1 focuses on its effect on biodiversity.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      'Choice A is the best answer. Text 1 is extremely positive about Strassburg’s team’s findings, calling the potential results "a clear win in the fight against the biodiversity and climate crises." Text 2 is not as positive, arguing that while the findings point to "potential benefits," we also need to consider the "potential effects on global food supplies."<br>Choice B is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Text 1 does present the 15% number as enough to achieve meaningful results, but that’s not what Text 2 takes issue with: rather, Text 2 argues that we need to consider the effect that rewilding this much farmland would have on food supplies. Choice C is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Neither text mentions the timeline for achieving the results described by Strassburg’s team. Choice D is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Text 1 focuses on rewilding’s effects on both carbon emissions and biodiversity. Text 2 doesn’t focus on rewilding’s effect on carbon emissions at all. Instead, it focuses on a third factor: global food supplies.',
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "8d802289",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Dance choreographer Alvin Ailey’s deep admiration for jazz music can most clearly be felt in the rhythms and beats his works were set to. Ailey collaborated with some of the greatest jazz legends, like Charles Mingus, Charlie Parker, and perhaps his favorite, Duke Ellington. With his choice of music, Ailey helped bring jazz to life for his audiences.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Jazz is present throughout Ailey’s work, but it’s most visible in Ailey’s approach to choreography. Ailey often incorporated improvisation, a signature characteristic of jazz music, in his work. When managing his dance company, Ailey rarely forced his dancers to an exact set of specific moves. Instead, he encouraged his dancers to let their own skills and experiences shape their performances, as jazz musicians do.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Dancers who worked with Ailey greatly appreciated his supportive approach as a choreographer.",
      },
      { label: "B", text: "Ailey’s work was strongly influenced by jazz." },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Audiences were mostly unfamiliar with the jazz music in Ailey’s works.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Ailey blended multiple genres of music together when choreographing dance pieces.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer. Author 1 states that Ailey had a “deep admiration for jazz music” and that he “helped bring jazz to life for his audiences.” Author 2 states that “Jazz is present throughout Ailey’s work.” While the authors name different aspects of Ailey’s work as the most influenced by jazz, they agree that jazz was a strong influence. <br>Choice A is incorrect. This isn’t something that either text claims. Neither text mentions how Ailey’s dancers felt about his approach as a choreographer, so we have no evidence that either author would agree with this. Choice C is incorrect. This isn’t something that either text claims. Neither text mentions how familiar audiences were with any aspect of Ailey’s works, so we have no evidence that either author would agree with this. Choice D is incorrect. This isn’t something that either text claims. Neither text mentions any genre of music other than jazz, so we have no evidence that either author would agree with this.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "9645f55e",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>For decades, bluegrass musicians have debated whether their genre should exclude influences from mainstream genres such as rock. Many insist that bluegrass is defined by its adherence to the folk music of the US South, out of which bluegrass emerged. Such “purists,” as they are known, regard the recordings of Bill Monroe, which established the bluegrass sound in the 1940s, as a standard against which the genre should still be measured.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Bluegrass isn’t simply an extension of folk traditions into the era of recorded music. In reality, Bill Monroe created the bluegrass sound in the 1940s by combining Southern folk music with commercial genres that had arisen only a few decades before, such as jazz and the blues. Since bluegrass has always been a mixed genre, contemporary bluegrass musicians should not be forbidden from incorporating into it influences from rock and other mainstream genres.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely regard the perspective of bluegrass purists, as described in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "As inconsistent, since bluegrass purists themselves enjoy other musical genres",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "As unrealistic, since bluegrass purists have no way of enforcing their musical preferences",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "As shortsighted, because bluegrass could enlarge its audience by including influences from mainstream genres",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "As illogical, because the purists overlook crucial aspects of how the bluegrass sound first originated.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. According to Author 1, the “purists” argue that bluegrass should stick to its folk music roots. But Author 2 points out that this isn’t how bluegrass emerged: it actually got its sound from a mix of folk, jazz, and blues. <br>Choice A is incorrect. There’s nothing in Text 2 about what other genres the purists enjoy, so this inference about Author 2’s views isn’t supported. Choice B is incorrect. There’s nothing in Text 2 about whether or how purists can enforce their preferences, so this inference about Author 2’s views isn’t supported. Choice C is incorrect. There’s nothing in Text 2 about the size of bluegrass’s audience, so this inference about Author 2’s views isn’t supported.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "c106b9f7",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>American sculptor Edmonia Lewis is best known for her sculptures that represent figures from history and mythology, such as The Death of Cleopatra and Hagar. Although Lewis sculpted other subjects, her career as a sculptor is best represented by the works in which she depicted these historical and mythical themes. <br> <br>Text 2 <br>Art historians have typically ignored the many portrait busts Edmonia Lewis created. Lewis likely carved these busts (sculptures of a person’s head) frequently throughout her long career. She is known for her sculptures that represent historical figures, but Lewis likely supported herself financially by carving portrait busts for acquaintances who paid her to represent their features. Thus, Lewis’s portrait busts are a central aspect of her career as a sculptor.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Lewis’s portrait busts have overshadowed her other work.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "The Death of Cleopatra is Lewis’s most famous piece.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Sculpting representations of historical figures was a short-lived trend.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Lewis’s works are varied in the subjects they depict.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. Author 1 acknowledges that Lewis sculpted other subjects besides historical and mythical figures, suggesting a variety of subjects depicted. Author 2 mentions that Lewis carved portrait busts as well as historical sculptures, which also implies variation among Lewis’s subjects. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither text suggests that Lewis’s portrait busts have received more attention or appreciation than her other work. Author 1 briefly mentions her “other works,” but mostly focuses on her historical and mythical works. Author 2 states that art historians have typically ignored her portrait busts, which suggests that they haven’t overshadowed her other work. Choice B is incorrect. Neither text explicitly states that The Death of Cleopatra is Lewis’s most famous piece. Author 1 mentions it as one example of her historical works, but does not single it out as being more important or influential than Hagar. Author 2 does not mention it at all, focusing instead on her portrait busts. Choice C is incorrect. This choice isn’t supported by the texts. Neither text suggests that sculpting historical figures was a trend that faded quickly.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "c68ceeff",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Today the starchy root cassava is found in many dishes across West Africa, but its rise to popularity was slow. Portuguese traders brought cassava from Brazil to the West African coast in the 1500s. But at this time, people living in the capitals further inland had little contact with coastal communities. Thus, cassava remained relatively unknown to most of the region’s inhabitants until the 1800s.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Cassava’s slow adoption into the diet of West Africans is mainly due to the nature of the crop itself. If not cooked properly, cassava can be toxic. Knowledge of how to properly prepare cassava needed to spread before the food could grow in popularity. The arrival of formerly enslaved people from Brazil in the 1800s, who brought their knowledge of cassava and its preparation with them, thus directly fueled the spread of this crop.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Cassava did not become a significant crop in West Africa until long after it was first introduced.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Several of the most commonly grown crops in West Africa are originally from Brazil.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "The climate of the West African coast in the 1500s prevented cassava’s spread in the region.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "The most commonly used methods to cook cassava today date to the 1500s.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. Text 1 states that cassava’s “rise to popularity was slow” in West Africa. Text 2 also describes cassava’s “slow adoption into the diet of West Africans.” While the two texts identify different causes for this slow adoption, both agree that cassava took a long time to catch on. <br>Choice B is incorrect. This isn’t something that either text claims. Cassava is the only crop discussed in the passages, so we have no basis to draw conclusions about what the authors might say about “several” crops. Choice C is incorrect. This isn’t something that either text claims. Neither text mentions the “climate of the West African coast,” so we have no evidence that either author would agree with this. Choice D is incorrect. This isn’t something that either text claims. The 1500s were when cassava was brought to West Africa, but neither text describes how cassava is cooked, nor do they make any claims about when cooking methods were developed.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "dc043599",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Most scientists agree that the moon was likely formed after a collision between Earth and a large planet named Theia. This collision likely created a huge debris field, made up of material from both Earth and Theia. Based on models of this event, scientists believe that the moon was formed from this debris over the course of thousands of years.<br> <br>Text 2 <br>Researchers from NASA’s Ames Research Center used a computer to model how the moon could have formed. Although simulations of the moon’s formation have been done in the past, the team from NASA ran simulations that were much more detailed. They found that the formation of the moon was likely not a slow process that took many years. Instead, it’s probable that the moon’s formation happened immediately after impact, taking just a few hours.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view the evidence for the formation of the moon?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "The author of Text 1 argues that the formation of the moon occurred much earlier than the author of Text 2 argues.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "The author of Text 1 suggests there is more evidence confirming the existence of Theia than the author of Text 2 suggests.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "The author of Text 1 claims that the moon’s surface is more similar to Earth’s surface than the author of Text 2 claims.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "The author of Text 1 believes that the moon formed more slowly than the author of Text 2 believes.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. Text 1 states that the moon was formed from the debris “over the course of thousands of years,” while Text 2 states that the moon’s formation happened “immediately after impact, taking just a few hours.” This shows a clear difference in how the authors view the evidence for the speed of the moon’s formation. <br>Choice A is incorrect. While Text 2 suggests that the moon formed over “just a few hours” and Text 1 says it took “thousands of years,” neither one mentions when that formation occurred. Choice B is incorrect. While Theia isn’t mentioned in Text 2, neither text describes or disputes evidence of Theia’s existence. Choice C is incorrect. Neither text makes any claims about the similarity or difference between the moon’s surface and Earth’s surface.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
];

export const CROSS_TEXT_MEDIUM: PracticeQuestion[] = [
  {
    id: "03080769",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Philosopher G.E. Moore’s most influential work entails the concept of common sense. He asserts that there are certain beliefs that all people, including philosophers, know instinctively to be true, whether or not they profess otherwise: among them, that they have bodies, or that they exist in a world with other objects that have three dimensions. Moore’s careful work on common sense may seem obvious but was in fact groundbreaking.<br> <br>Text 2<br>External world skepticism is a philosophical stance supposing that we cannot be sure of the existence of anything outside our own minds. During a lecture, G.E. Moore once offered a proof refuting this stance by holding out his hands and saying, “Here is one hand, and here is another.” Many philosophers reflexively reject this proof (Annalisa Coliva called it “an obviously annoying failure”) but have found it a challenge to articulate exactly why the proof fails.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to proponents of the philosophical stance outlined in Text 2?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By agreeing with those proponents that Moore’s treatment of positions that contradict his own is fundamentally unserious",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By suggesting that an instinctive distaste for Moore’s position is preventing external world skeptics from constructing a sufficiently rigorous refutation of Moore",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By arguing that if it is valid to assert that some facts are true based on instinct, it is also valid to assert that some proofs are inadequate based on instinct",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By pointing out that Moore would assert that external world skepticism is at odds with other beliefs those proponents must unavoidably hold",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. According to the author of Text 1, Moore’s definition of common sense—things we instinctively know are true—includes the belief that we all “exist in a world with other objects.” The author of Text 1 describes this notion as both “obvious” and “groundbreaking.”  So it’s safe to infer that the author would observe that Moore would respond to external world skeptics by arguing that since everyone instinctively knows that things exist outside of their own minds, then external world skepticism must be wrong. <br>Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to external world skeptics. If anything, the author of Text 1 seems to agree with Moore. Choice B is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to external world skeptics. The author of Text 1 never mentions external world skeptics directly, let alone why they have a hard time refuting Moore’s position. Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to external world skeptics. Text 1’s presentation of Moore’s concept of common sense only includes the idea that some facts are true based on instinct—it doesn’t mention the idea that some proofs are inadequate based on instinct.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "12d81fc1",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Because literacy in Nahuatl script, the writing system of the Aztec Empire, was lost after Spain invaded central Mexico in the 1500s, it is unclear exactly how meaning was encoded in the script’s symbols. Although many scholars had assumed that the symbols signified entire words, linguist Alfonso Lacadena theorized in 2008 that they signified units of language smaller than words: individual syllables.<br> <br>Text 2<br>The growing consensus among scholars of Nahuatl script is that many of its symbols could signify either words or syllables, depending on syntax and content at any given site within a text. For example, the symbol signifying the word huipil (blouse) in some contexts could signify the syllable “pil” in others, as in the place name “Chipiltepec.” Thus, for the Aztecs, reading required a determination of how such symbols functioned each time they appeared in a text.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize Lacadena’s theory, as described in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By praising the theory for recognizing that the script’s symbols could represent entire words",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By arguing that the theory is overly influenced by the work of earlier scholars",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By approving of the theory’s emphasis on how the script changed over time",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By cautioning that the theory overlooks certain important aspects of how the script functioned",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. Lacadena’s theory is that Nahuatl script symbols signified syllables, but the consensus described in Text 2 is that they can signify either symbols or full words, depending on the context. So the author of Text 2 would likely consider Lacadena’s theory too simplistic: it’s missing the importance of the context in determining the meaning of a symbol. <br>Choice A is incorrect. This conflicts with Text 1’s description of Lacadena’s theory. Lacadena’s theory is that Nahuatl script symbols signified syllables. Choice B is incorrect. This conflicts with Text 1’s description of Lacadena’s theory. Text 1 states that Lacadena’s theory differed from what earlier scholars believed. Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 2 would characterize Lacadena’s theory. Neither text mentions how or even if the script changed over time.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "27d9bb69",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Many studies in psychology have shown that people seek out information even when they know in advance that they have no immediate use for it and that they won’t directly benefit from it. Such findings support the consensus view among researchers of curiosity: namely, that curiosity is not instrumental but instead represents a drive to acquire information for its own sake.<br>Text 2<br>While acknowledging that acquiring information is a powerful motivator, Rachit Dubey and colleagues ran an experiment to test whether emphasizing the usefulness of scientific information could increase curiosity about it. They found that when research involving rats and fruit flies was presented as having medical applications for humans, participants expressed greater interest in learning about it than when the research was not presented as useful.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Dubey and colleagues (Text 2) most likely respond to the consensus view discussed in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By suggesting that curiosity may not be exclusively motivated by the desire to merely acquire information",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By conceding that people may seek out information that serves no immediate purpose only because they think they can use it later",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By pointing out that it is challenging to determine when information-seeking serves no goal beyond acquiring information",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By disputing the idea that curiosity can help explain apparently purposeless information-seeking behaviors",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. The researchers in Text 2 recognize that acquiring information is a powerful motivator, but showed that this motivation can still be affected by other factors, like whether or not the information is expected to be useful or not. This suggests that other desires may play a part in driving people to acquire information. <br>Choice B is incorrect. The consensus view in Text 1 is that people acquire information regardless of whether they think they can use it later. Dubey and colleagues acknowledge this fact (so they don’t claim people seek out information “only” because it might be useful later). Choice C is incorrect. This choice misreads the results of Dubey and colleagues’ study in Text 2. Neither text discusses the difficulty of determining the motivation for information-seeking. Choice D is incorrect. This choice contradicts Text 2, which starts with Dubey and colleagues “acknowledging that acquiring information is a powerful motivator” (i.e., agreeing that curiosity explains the seeking of apparently purposeless information). The research in Text 2 simply suggests that more than just curiosity can motivate information-seeking behavior when the information has a purpose.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "7bf79a90",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Microbes are tiny organisms in the soil, water, and air all around us. They thrive even in very harsh conditions. That’s why Noah Fierer and colleagues were surprised when soil samples they collected from an extremely cold, dry area in Antarctica didn’t seem to contain any life. The finding doesn’t prove that there are no microbes in that area, but the team says it does suggest that the environment severely restricts microbes’ survival.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Microbes are found in virtually every environment on Earth. So it’s unlikely they would be completely absent from Fierer’s team’s study site, no matter how extreme the environment is. There were probably so few organisms in the samples that current technology couldn’t detect them. But since a spoonful of typical soil elsewhere might contain billions of microbes, the presence of so few in the Antarctic soil samples would show how challenging the conditions are.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, Fierer’s team and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement about microbes?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Most microbes are better able to survive in environments with extremely dry conditions than in environments with harsh temperatures.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "A much higher number of microbes would probably be found if another sample of soil were taken from the Antarctic study site.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Microbes are likely difficult to detect in the soil at the Antarctic study site because they tend to be smaller than microbes found in typical soil elsewhere.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Most microbes are probably unable to withstand the soil conditions at the Antarctic study site.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer because it presents a statement about microbes with which Fierer’s team (Text 1) and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree. Text 1 states that microbes usually thrive in very harsh conditions, and so Fierer’s team was surprised when samples collected from an extremely cold and dry area of Antarctica didn’t appear to contain any life. Fierer’s team says that though this doesn’t conclusively prove there are no microbes in the area, it suggests that microbes would have a notably difficult time surviving in the environment. The author of Text 2 says it’s unlikely that there would be no microbes at all in the Antarctic study site from which Fierer’s team retrieved soil samples and that there may have been hard-to-detect microbes in the samples. However, the presence of only a few microbes in the Antarctic samples rather than the billions found in a typical soil sample (which would presumably be much easier to detect) would illustrate conditions in the Antarctic soil that make it difficult for microbes to thrive. Since Fierer’s team says that the seeming absence of microbes in the Antarctic samples suggests an unusually harsh environment and the author of Text 2 says that even if there are a few undetectable microbes in the samples, the relatively tiny number of microbes would also suggest an unusually harsh environment, then Fierer’s team and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree that most microbes are unable to withstand the soil conditions at the Antarctic study site. <br>Choice A is incorrect. The samples taken by Fierer’s team were from an area of Antarctica that is described in part as extremely dry, and these samples didn’t appear to have any life. Therefore, even though these samples also came from an extremely cold area, Fierer’s team wouldn’t argue based on the evidence available that microbes were better able to survive in dry conditions than in areas with harsh temperatures. Moreover, the author of Text 2 says that microbes are found in virtually every environment on Earth but doesn’t compare dry environments and harsh environments. Choice B is incorrect. Nothing in Text 1 indicates that another collection of samples from the Antarctic study site might yield different results from the samples already taken by Fierer’s team. The author of Text 2 does state that microbes are found in virtually every environment on Earth and suggests that new technology may be better able to detect so few microbes in a soil sample, but the author of Text 2 concludes that the unusual absence of microbes in the Antarctic samples is evidence of the harsh Antarctic environment. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the author of Text 2 thinks that another sample drawn from that same harsh environment would yield a much higher number of microbes. Choice C is incorrect. The author of Text 2 does speculate that there may have been so few microbes in the Antarctic samples that current technology couldn’t detect them, but the author doesn’t speculate that this is due to the size of the microbes. Moreover, nothing that Fierer’s team says suggests that they are speculating that their samples might have microbes that are smaller than microbes in typical soil samples.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "82c05b34",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>The live music festival business is growing in event size and genre variety. With so many consumer options, organizers are finding ways to cement festival attendance as a special experience worth sharing. This phenomenon is linked to the growing “experiential economy,” where many find it gratifying to purchase lived experiences. To ensure a profitable event, venues need to consider the overall consumer experience, not just the band lineup.<br>Text 2<br>Music festival appearances are becoming a more important part of musicians’ careers. One factor in this shift is the rising use of streaming services that allow access to huge numbers of songs for a monthly fee, subsequently reducing sales of full-length albums. With this shift in consumer behavior, musicians are increasingly dependent on revenue from live performances.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Consumers are more interested in paying subscription fees to stream music than in attending music festivals in person.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Consumers’ growing interest in purchasing experiences is mostly confined to the music industry.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Changing consumer behaviors are leading to changes in music-related businesses.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "The rising consumer demand for live music festivals also generates higher demand for music streaming platforms.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      "Choice C is the best answer. Both authors mention how consumer behaviors have shifted, and how this affects different aspects of the music industry. Text 1 states that consumers enjoy purchasing “lived experiences,” and that this influences how organizers design music festivals. Text 2 states that consumers are using streaming services more, and that this reduces album sales and increases the importance of live performances for musicians. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither text claims that consumers prefer streaming to festivals, or that these are mutually exclusive options. Text 1 implies that festivals are popular and profitable, and Text 2 never suggests that streaming services diminish the demand for live music. Choice B is incorrect. This choice misreads Text 1, which identifies music festivals as just one example of a broader trend of purchasing “lived experiences.” Text 2 doesn’t mention growing interest in purchasing experiences, in the music industry or otherwise. Choice D is incorrect. Neither text establishes a cause/effect relationship between the demand for festivals and the demand for streaming platforms. Text 1 does not mention streaming platforms at all, and Text 2 does not imply that streaming platforms benefit from the popularity of festivals.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "8de51658",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>The idea that time moves in only one direction is instinctively understood, yet it puzzles physicists. According to the second law of thermodynamics, at a macroscopic level some processes of heat transfer are irreversible due to the production of entropy—after a transfer we cannot rewind time and place molecules back exactly where they were before, just as we cannot unbreak dropped eggs. But laws of physics at a microscopic or quantum level hold that those processes should be reversible.<br> <br>Text 2<br>In 2015, physicists Tiago Batalhão et al. performed an experiment in which they confirmed the irreversibility of thermodynamic processes at a quantum level, producing entropy by applying a rapidly oscillating magnetic field to a system of carbon-13 atoms in liquid chloroform. But the experiment “does not pinpoint ... what causes <strong>irreversibility</strong> at the microscopic level,” coauthor Mauro Paternostro said.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, what would the author of Text 1 most likely say about the experiment described in Text 2?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "It would suggest an interesting direction for future research were it not the case that two of the physicists who conducted the experiment disagree on the significance of its findings.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "It provides empirical evidence that the current understanding of an aspect of physics at a microscopic level must be incomplete.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "It is consistent with the current understanding of physics at a microscopic level but not at a macroscopic level.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "It supports a claim about an isolated system of atoms in a laboratory, but that claim should not be extrapolated to a general claim about the universe.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer. Author 1 describes the puzzle that physicists still can’t solve: at a microscopic level, the “laws of physics” suggest that we should be able to reverse processes that are not reversible at a macroscopic level (and, maybe, turn back time!). The experiment confirmed that those processes are not reversible even on the microscopic level, but it didn’t explain why. This supports Author 1’s point that physicists still don’t fully understand how things work at a microscopic level—maybe the laws need to be revised. <br>Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to the experiment. Text 2 does name two of the physicists involved in the experiment, but it never suggests that they disagree on anything. Choice C is incorrect. This is the opposite of what the experiment suggests. The experiment confirmed that the macroscopic-level law (“these things can’t be reversed—like time”) was still true on the microscopic level—meaning it supports the current understanding of physics at a macroscopic level. Choice D is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to the experiment. Neither text makes this distinction between laboratory findings and the way the universe works in general.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "ab56a107",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Digital art, the use of digital technology to create or display images, isn’t really art at all. It doesn’t require as much skill as creating physical art. “Painting” with a tablet and stylus is much easier than using paint and a brush: the technology is doing most of the work.<br> <br>Text 2<br>The painting programs used to create digital art involve more than just pressing a few buttons. In addition to knowing the fundamentals of art, digital artists need to be familiar with sophisticated software. Many artists will start by drawing an image on paper before transforming the piece to a digital format, where they can apply a variety of colors and techniques that would otherwise require many different traditional tools.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claims of the author of Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By arguing that a piece of art created digitally can still be displayed traditionally",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By explaining that it’s actually much harder to use a tablet and stylus to create art than to use paint and a brush",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By insisting that digital art requires artistic abilities and skill even if it employs less traditional tools",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By admitting that most digital artists don’t think fundamental drawing skills are important",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      "Choice C is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would respond to the claims in Text 1. Both texts address skills needed to produce digital art. Text 1 claims that digital art doesn’t require the same amount of skill as creating physical art and that “the technology is doing most of the work.” Text 2 states that digital art requires “knowing the fundamentals of art” and that many digital artists begin their work on paper and then transfer it to a digital format using “sophisticated software” and “a variety of colors and techniques.” Therefore, the author of Text 2 would most likely insist that digital art requires artistic abilities even if it employs less traditional tools. <br>Choice A is incorrect because neither text discusses nondigital means of displaying art. Choice B is incorrect because the author of Text 2 doesn’t address whether it’s harder to use a tablet and stylus than it is to use paint and a brush. Text 2 does argue that digital art requires skills that aren’t part of the traditional methods for producing art, but the text doesn’t address relative difficulty. Choice D is incorrect because the author of Text 2 states that digital artists still need to know “the fundamentals of art” and that many digital artists begin their work by drafting on paper before transferring the work to a digital format.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "e1befb41",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>In a study of the benefits of having free time, Marissa Sharif found that the reported sense of life satisfaction tended to plateau when participants had two hours of free time per day and actually began to fall when they had five hours of free time per day. After further research, Sharif concluded that this dip in life satisfaction mainly occurred when individuals spent all their free time unproductively, such as by watching TV or playing games.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Psychologist James Maddux cautions against suggesting an ideal amount of free time. The human desire for both free time and productivity is universal, but Maddux asserts that individuals have unique needs for life satisfaction. Furthermore, he points out that there is no objective definition for what constitutes productivity; reading a book might be considered a productive activity by some, but idleness by others.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Maddux (Text 2) most likely respond to the conclusion Sharif (Text 1) reached after her further research?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By acknowledging that free time is more likely to enhance life satisfaction when it is spent productively than when it is spent unproductively",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By challenging the reasoning in Text 1, as it has not been proved that productivity commonly contributes to individuals’ life satisfaction",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By warning against making an overly broad assumption, as there is no clear consensus in distinguishing between productive and unproductive activities",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By claiming that the specific activities named in Text 1 are actually examples of productive activities rather than unproductive ones",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      "Choice C is the best answer because it characterizes how Maddux would most likely respond to the conclusion Sharif reached after her research. Text 1 describes Sharif’s study of the benefits of free time, saying that the reported sense of satisfaction plateaued at two hours per day and began to decline at five hours per day. Further research led Sharif to conclude that time spent doing tasks she defines as unproductive, such as watching TV or playing games, correlated with a drop in life satisfaction.  However, in Text 2 Maddux says that there is no objective definition of what constitutes productive behavior, giving the example that reading a book might be considered productive by some but unproductive by others. It can be inferred that Maddux would also assert that whether watching TV or playing games is productive or unproductive is a matter of subjective judgment. Thus, Maddux would most likely caution against making an overly broad assumption, as there is no clear consensus in distinguishing between productive and unproductive activities. <br>Choice A is incorrect because Maddux asserts that individuals have unique needs for life satisfaction: some may want to spend that time productively, others unproductively, and what counts as productive is subjective. Therefore, Maddux would likely not consider it universally true that free time is more likely to enhance life satisfaction when it is spent productively. Choice B is incorrect because the study described in Text 1 concerns whether free time contributes to life satisfaction, not whether productivity contributes to life satisfaction. The dip in life satisfaction that Sharif claims to observe in Text 1 happens only after five hours, and mainly if the time is spent unproductively—that is, two hours of free time spent productively might increase life satisfaction just as much as two hours spent unproductively. Choice D is incorrect because Maddux holds the opinion that whether an activity is productive or unproductive is subjective and depends on the individual; therefore, he would most likely claim that watching TV or playing games might be productive for some and unproductive for others.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "eae66bf9",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>In 2021, a team led by Amir Siraj hypothesized that the Chicxulub impactor—the object that struck the Yucatán Peninsula sixty-six million years ago, precipitating the mass extinction of the dinosaurs—was likely a member of the class of long-period comets. As evidence, Siraj cited the carbonaceous chondritic composition of samples from the Chicxulub impact crater as well as of samples obtained from long-period comet Wild 2 in 2006.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Although long-period comets contain carbonaceous chondrites, asteroids are similarly rich in these materials. Furthermore, some asteroids are rich in iridium, as Natalia Artemieva points out, whereas long-period comets are not. Given the prevalence of iridium at the crater and, more broadly, in geological layers deposited worldwide following the impact, Artemieva argues that an asteroid is a more plausible candidate for the Chicxulub impactor.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Artemieva likely respond to Siraj’s hypothesis, as presented in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By insisting that it overestimates how representative Wild 2 is of long-period comets as a class",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By arguing that it does not account for the amount of iridium found in geological layers dating to the Chicxulub impact",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By praising it for connecting the composition of Chicxulub crater samples to the composition of certain asteroids",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By concurring that carbonaceous chondrites are prevalent in soil samples from sites distant from the Chicxulub crater",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer. Siraj’s hypothesis is that the Chicxulub impactor was a long-period comet. But Artemieva points to the iridium found in the crater and in “geological layers that were deposited worldwide after the impact” as evidence that it was actually an asteroid, not a long-period comet. <br>Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj’s hypothesis. Text 2 never discusses whether Wild 2 is representative of long-period comets in general. Rather, Text 2 presents Artemieva’s argument that the Chicxulub impactor was an asteroid, not a long-term comet. Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj’s hypothesis. Siraj’s hypothesis doesn’t make this connection: rather, Siraj hypothesizes that the Chicxulub impactor was a long-term comet. Choice D is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj’s hypothesis. “Soil samples from sites distant from the Chicxulub crater” is too vague. Only soil samples from sites that are connected to the impact in some way are involved in either hypothesis.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "f0ae0da3",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>When companies in the same industry propose merging with one another, they often claim that the merger will benefit consumers by increasing efficiency and therefore lowering prices. Economist Ying Fan investigated this notion in the context of the United States newspaper market. She modeled a hypothetical merger of Minneapolis-area newspapers and found that subscription prices would rise following a merger.<br>Text 2<br>Economists Dario Focarelli and Fabio Panetta have argued that research on the effect of mergers on prices has focused excessively on short-term effects, which tend to be adverse for consumers. Using the case of consumer banking in Italy, they show that over the long term (several years, in their study), the efficiency gains realized by merged companies do result in economic benefits for consumers.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Focarelli and Panetta (Text 2) most likely respond to Fan’s findings (Text 1)?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "They would recommend that Fan compare the near-term effect of a merger on subscription prices in the Minneapolis area with the effect of a merger in another newspaper market.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "They would argue that over the long term the expenses incurred by the merged newspaper company will also increase.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "They would encourage Fan to investigate whether the projected effect on subscription prices persists over an extended period.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "They would claim that mergers have a different effect on consumer prices in the newspaper industry than in most other industries.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      'Choice C is the best answer because, based on the information presented in the texts, it represents how Focarelli and Panetta would most likely respond to Fan’s findings. Text 1 indicates that Fan found that a newspaper merger would result in a rise in subscription prices. This rise wouldn’t benefit customers, who would have to pay more for news after a merger. Text 2 presents Focarelli and Panetta’s argument that merger research tends to focus too much on what happens immediately after the merger. Text 2 goes on to describe their finding that mergers can be economically beneficial for consumers over the long term. This suggests that Focarelli and Panetta would encourage Fan to investigate the long-term effect of the hypothetical newspaper merger on subscription prices.<br>Choice A is incorrect because Text 2 doesn’t indicate that Focarelli and Panetta connect the effects of mergers to specific locations. Instead, Focarelli and Panetta focus on the length of time over which the effects of mergers should be evaluated. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 indicates that Focarelli and Panetta found that merged companies experience "efficiency gains" over the long term, meaning that their expenses go down relative to their output, not that their expenses increase. Choice D is incorrect because there’s no indication in Text 2 that Focarelli and Panetta believe that the newspaper industry is different from any other industry when it comes to the effects of mergers. Although their own research was about consumer banking, Text 2 suggests that they view their conclusions as applicable to mergers in general.',
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "f1c9d2c1",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Stage lighting theorist Adolphe Appia was perhaps the first to argue that light must be considered alongside all the various elements of a stage to create a single, unified performance. Researcher Kelly Bremner, however, has noted that Appia lacked technical expertise in the use of light in the theater. As a result of Appia’s inexperience, Bremner argues, Appia’s theory of light called for lighting practices that weren’t possible until after the advent of electricity around 1881. <br> <br>Text 2<br>Adolphe Appia was not an amateur in the practice of lighting. Instead, it is precisely his exposure to lighting techniques at the time that contributed to his theory on the importance of light. When working as an apprentice for a lighting specialist in his youth, Appia observed the use of portable lighting devices that could be operated by hand. This experience developed his understanding of what was possible in the coordination of elements on the stage.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim about Appia’s level of technical expertise made by Bremner in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Many lighting technicians dismissed Appia’s ideas about light on the stage.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Appia likely gained a level of technical expertise during his time as an apprentice.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Theater practitioners who worked with Appia greatly admired his work.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Appia was unfamiliar with the use of music and sound in theater.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer. The author of Text 2 directly contradicts Bremner’s claim that Appia lacked technical expertise by stating that Appia was “not an amateur in the practice of lighting.” His experience as a lighting specialist’s apprentice would have, the author of Text 2 argues, allowed Appia to “<strong>develop</strong> his understanding of what was possible” with the elements of theatrical design. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither text describes how other lighting technicians responded to Appia’s ideas. Furthermore, this claim isn’t relevant to Bremner’s evaluation of Appia’s technical expertise. Choice C is incorrect. Neither text mentions anything about the opinions of theater practitioners who worked with Appia, so this answer choice does not relate to the claim about Appia’s level of technical expertise made by Bremner in Text 1. Choice D is incorrect. Neither text mentions anything about Appia’s familiarity with or ignorance of the use of music and sound in theater. Both focus on his expertise (or lack thereof) in lighting.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "f52cc78c",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Polar bears sustain themselves primarily by hunting seals on the Arctic sea ice, but rising ocean temperatures are causing the ice to diminish, raising concerns about polar bear population declines as these large predators’ seal-hunting habitats continue to shrink. A 2020 study examining polar bear populations across the Arctic concluded that populations affected by sea-ice loss are at great risk of extinction by the end of the twenty-first century.<br>Text 2<br>Monitoring carried out by researchers from the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that the polar bear population on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard remains stable and well nourished despite rapidly declining sea ice in recent years. The researchers attribute this population’s resilience in part to a shift in feeding strategies: in addition to hunting seals, the Svalbard polar bears have begun relying on a diet of reindeer meat and birds’ eggs.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the researchers in Text 2 most likely respond to the conclusion presented in the underlined portion of Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By noting that it neglects the possibility of some polar bear populations adapting to changes in their environment",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By suggesting that it is likely incorrect about the rates at which warming ocean temperatures have caused sea ice to melt in the Arctic",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By asserting that it overlooks polar bear populations that have not yet been affected by loss of seal-hunting habitats",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By arguing that it fails to account for polar bears’ reliance on a single seal-hunting strategy",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. Text 2 describes how the Svalbard polar bears have adapted to the loss of sea ice by diversifying their diet and feeding on reindeer and seabird eggs, resulting in a “stable and well nourished” population despite environmental challenges. This counters the underlined claim that polar bears facing a loss of sea ice are at “great risk of extinction” by the end of the century. <br>Choice B is incorrect. Text 2 does not challenge the fact that sea ice is rapidly declining in the Arctic due to warming ocean temperatures. In fact, it states that the Svalbard polar bears have faced “rapidly declining sea ice in recent years.” Choice C is incorrect. The claim in Text 1 is specific to polar bear populations affected by the loss of seal hunting habitats, so unaffected populations are irrelevant to the claim. Also, Text 2 doesn’t mention any polar bear populations that haven’t yet been affected by loss of seal hunting habitats. It focuses on a population that has been affected by sea-ice loss but has managed to survive and thrive nevertheless. Choice D is incorrect. Text 2 doesn’t imply that polar bears rely on a single seal-hunting strategy. In fact, the researcher in Text 2 would say that Text 1 fails to account for polar bears’ ability to develop other hunting strategies and food sources.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "f653b273",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>A tiny, unusual fossil in a piece of 99-million-year-old amber is of the extinct species Oculudentavis khaungraae. The O. khaungraae fossil consists of a rounded skull with a thin snout and a large eye socket. Because these features look like they are avian, or related to birds, researchers initially thought that the fossil might be the smallest avian dinosaur ever found.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Paleontologists were excited to discover a second small fossil that is similar to the strange O. khaungraae fossil but has part of the lower body along with a birdlike skull. Detailed studies of both fossils revealed several traits that are found in lizards but not in dinosaurs or birds. Therefore, paleontologists think the two creatures were probably unusual lizards, even though the skulls looked avian at first.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, what would the paleontologists in Text 2 most likely say about the researchers’ initial thought in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "It is understandable because the fossil does look like it could be related to birds, even though O. khaungraae is probably a lizard.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "It is confusing because it isn’t clear what caused the researchers to think that O. khaungraae might be related to birds.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "It is flawed because the researchers mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "It is reasonable because the O. khaungraae skull is about the same size as the skull of the second fossil but is shaped differently.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer because it reflects what the paleontologists in Text 2 would most likely say about what the researchers in Text 1 initially thought. Text 1 focuses on the discovery of a strange fossil consisting of the skull of the extinct species Oculudentavis khaungraae. According to Text 1, the fossil has features that appear to be avian, or related to birds, which led researchers to initially think that the fossil might be a very small avian dinosaur. Text 2 begins by noting the discovery of a second fossil similar to the one discussed in Text 1, then explains that based on detailed studies of both fossils, paleontologists think that the two creatures were probably unusual lizards, even though the skulls appeared avian at first. This suggests that the paleontologists in Text 2 recognize that the fossils do indeed look like they could be related to birds. For this reason, the paleontologists in Text 2 would most likely say that the initial thought of the researchers in Text 1—that the fossil was avian—is understandable, even if the fossil is probably not avian but rather is from a lizard. <br>Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 indicates that the fossils initially looked avian, so the paleontologists described in Text 2 wouldn’t be confused by the researchers in Text 1 initially thinking that O. khaungraae might be related to birds. The paleontologists would find that initial thought understandable, not confusing. Choice C is incorrect because Text 1 never mentions lizards, so it wouldn’t make sense for the paleontologists in Text 2 to say that the researchers in Text 1 mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard. Choice D is incorrect. Although the paleontologists in Text 2 might agree that the initial thought of the researchers in Text 1 was reasonable, nothing in Text 2 suggests that the two skulls were shaped differently.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
];

export const CROSS_TEXT_HARD: PracticeQuestion[] = [
  {
    id: "105ea6de",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Growth in the use of novel nanohybrids—materials created from the conjugation of multiple distinct nanomaterials, such as iron oxide and gold nanomaterials conjugated for use in magnetic imaging—has outpaced studies of nanohybrids’ environmental risks. Unfortunately, risk evaluations based on nanohybrids’ constituents are not reliable: conjugation may alter constituents’ physiochemical properties such that innocuous nanomaterials form a nanohybrid that is anything but.<br>Text 2<br>The potential for enhanced toxicity of nanohybrids relative to the toxicity of constituent nanomaterials has drawn deserved attention, but the effects of nanomaterial conjugation vary by case. For instance, it was recently shown that a nanohybrid of silicon dioxide and zinc oxide preserved the desired optical transparency of zinc oxide nanoparticles while mitigating the nanoparticles’ potential to damage DNA.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the assertion in the underlined portion of Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By concurring that the risk described in Text 1 should be evaluated but emphasizing that the risk is more than offset by the potential benefits of nanomaterial conjugation",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By arguing that the situation described in Text 1 may not be representative but conceding that the effects of nanomaterial conjugation are harder to predict than researchers had expected",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By denying that the circumstance described in Text 1 is likely to occur but acknowledging that many aspects of nanomaterial conjugation are still poorly understood",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By agreeing that the possibility described in Text 1 is a cause for concern but pointing out that nanomaterial conjugation does not inevitably produce that result",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. The author of Text 2 acknowledges that nanohybrids may be more toxic than their constituent parts, but also provides an example of a nanohybrid that has reduced toxicity compared to its components: silicon dioxide and zinc oxide together have all the benefits of zinc oxide nanoparticles without any of the DNA harm zinc oxide has on its own. <br>Choice A is incorrect. While the author of Text 2 gives an example of a nanohybrid that isn’t as toxic as its constituent parts, they don’t argue that the benefit outweighs the risk. They merely argue that “the effects of nanomaterial conjugation vary by case.” Choice B is incorrect. The author of Text 2 states that the effects of nanomaterial conjugation “vary by case,” and that the attention that their potential toxicity has drawn is warranted. If the situation in Text 1 weren’t representative, then there would be less attention to the potential danger of these materials. Furthermore, neither passage suggests that researchers had expected that they could predict the effects of nanomaterial conjugation. Choice C is incorrect. The author of Text 2 agrees that the potential toxicity of nanohybrids “has drawn deserved attention,” so they aren’t denying the problem.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "17bf10de",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Despite its beautiful prose, The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman’s 1962 analysis of the start of World War I, has certain weaknesses as a work of history. It fails to address events in Eastern Europe just before the outbreak of hostilities, thereby giving the impression that Germany was the war’s principal instigator. Had Tuchman consulted secondary works available to her by scholars such as Luigi Albertini, she would not have neglected the influence of events in Eastern Europe on Germany’s actions.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August is an engrossing if dated introduction to World War I. Tuchman’s analysis of primary documents is laudable, but her main thesis that European powers committed themselves to a catastrophic outcome by refusing to deviate from military plans developed prior to the conflict is implausibly reductive.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Which choice best describes a difference in how the authors of Text 1 and Text 2 view Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "The author of Text 1 argues that Tuchman should have relied more on the work of other historians, while the author of Text 2 implies that Tuchman’s most interesting claims result from her original research.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "The author of Text 1 believes that the scope of Tuchman’s research led her to an incorrect interpretation, while the author of Text 2 believes that Tuchman’s central argument is overly simplistic.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "The author of Text 1 asserts that the writing style of The Guns of August makes it worthwhile to read despite any perceived deficiency in Tuchman’s research, while the author of Text 2 focuses exclusively on the weakness of Tuchman’s interpretation of events.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "The author of Text 1 claims that Tuchman would agree that World War I was largely due to events in Eastern Europe, while the author of Text 2 maintains that Tuchman would say that Eastern European leaders were not committed to military plans in the same way that other leaders were.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      'Choice B is the best answer. Both texts are critical of The Guns of August, but for different reasons: the author of Text 1 argues that Tuchman missed an important factor leading up to the war because she didn’t consult secondary sources, and the author of Text 2 argues that Tuchman’s main thesis is "reductive," which is a close synonym for "overly simplistic."<br>Choice A is incorrect. This doesn’t accurately describe the difference. This choice’s summary of Text 1 is accurate, but Text 2 never says that Tuchman’s most interesting claims result from her original research. Choice C is incorrect. This doesn’t accurately describe the difference. Text 1 never says that The Guns of August is worthwhile to read despite its research weaknesses. Text 2 does call out a weakness of Tuchman’s interpretation of events, but it also praises her analysis of primary sources. Choice D is incorrect. This doesn’t accurately describe the difference. Text 1 actually says that Tuchman "fails to address" the influence of events in Eastern Europe, while Text 2 says that Tuchman’s thesis was that European powers (not Eastern European leaders) were committed to military plans.',
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "35e21b06",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Dominique Potvin and colleagues captured five Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) to test a new design for attaching tracking devices to birds. As the researchers fitted each magpie with a tracker attached by a small harness, they noticed some magpies without trackers pecking at another magpie’s tracker until it broke off. The researchers suggest that this behavior could be evidence of magpies attempting to help another magpie without benefiting themselves.<br> <br>Text 2<br>It can be tempting to think that animals are deliberately providing help when we see them removing trackers and other equipment from one another, especially when a species is known to exhibit other cooperative behaviors. At the same time, it can be difficult to exclude the possibility that individuals are simply interested in the equipment because of its novelty, curiously pawing or pecking at it until it detaches.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the researchers’ perspective in Text 1 on the behavior of the magpies without trackers?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "That behavior might have been due to the novelty of the magpies’ captive setting rather than to the novelty of the tracker.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "That behavior likely indicates that the magpies were deliberately attempting to benefit themselves by obtaining the tracker.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "That behavior may not be evidence of selflessness in Gymnorhina tibicen because not all the captured magpies demonstrated it.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "That behavior might be adequately explained without suggesting that the magpies were attempting to assist the other magpie.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to the researchers’ perspective in Text 1 on the behavior of the magpies without trackers. According to Text 1, Dominique Potvin and colleagues observed magpies without trackers pecking at a tracker on another magpie until the device fell off. The researchers suggested that the birds might have been attempting to help the other bird, with no benefit to themselves. Text 2 generally discusses scenarios in which animals have been observed removing trackers from each other. The text cautions that it shouldn’t be assumed that these animals are helping one another deliberately, since they might simply be pecking at trackers out of curiosity, causing them to fall off eventually. Therefore, the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to Potvin and colleagues’ perspective in Text 1 by saying that the behavior of the magpies without trackers could be adequately explained without suggesting that they were attempting to assist the other magpie.<br>Choice A is incorrect because Text 2 never discusses the novelty, or the newness and unusual quality, of the captive settings in which animals have been observed to remove trackers from other animals, nor does it suggest that such novelty might account for this behavior. Instead, the text suggests that it’s the novelty of the tracking equipment itself that might cause the behavior: interested in the trackers because they’re unusual, animals might paw or peck at them until they fall off. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 never suggests that when animals remove trackers from other animals, they do so because they wish to obtain the trackers for themselves. Instead, Text 2 argues that animals paw or peck at trackers because they are merely curious about them. Choice C is incorrect because Text 2 doesn’t argue that when captured animals are observed removing trackers from each other, their behavior should be regarded as selfless only if all of them participate in it. Instead, the text argues that the behavior may not be selfless at all and may instead be attributed to animals’ curiosity about the new and unusual trackers.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "5e101c70",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Most animals can regenerate some parts of their bodies, such as skin. But when a three-banded panther worm is cut into three pieces, each piece grows into a new worm. Researchers are investigating this feat partly to learn more about humans’ comparatively limited abilities to regenerate, and they’re making exciting progress. An especially promising discovery is that both humans and panther worms have a gene for early growth response (EGR) linked to regeneration.<br> <br>Text 2<br>When Mansi Srivastava and her team reported that panther worms, like humans, possess a gene for EGR, it caused excitement. However, as the team pointed out, the gene likely functions very differently in humans than it does in panther worms. Srivastava has likened EGR to a switch that activates other genes involved in regeneration in panther worms, but how this switch operates in humans remains unclear.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, what would the author of Text 2 most likely say about Text 1’s characterization of the discovery involving EGR?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "It is reasonable given that Srivastava and her team have identified how EGR functions in both humans and panther worms.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "It is overly optimistic given additional observations from Srivastava and her team.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "It is unexpected given that Srivastava and her team’s findings were generally met with enthusiasm.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "It is unfairly dismissive given the progress that Srivastava and her team have reported.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to Text 1 based on the information provided. Text 1 discusses the discovery of a regeneration-linked gene, EGR, in both three-banded panther worms (which are capable of full regeneration) and humans (who have relatively limited regeneration abilities). Text 1 characterizes this discovery as “especially promising” and a sign of “exciting progress” in understanding human regeneration. The author of Text 2, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that the team that reported the EGR finding pointed out that while EGR’s function in humans isn’t yet known, it’s likely very different from its function in panther worms. Therefore, the author of Text 2 would most likely say that Text 1’s enthusiasm about the EGR discovery is overly optimistic given Srivastava’s team’s observations about EGR in humans. <br>Choice A is incorrect because the author of Text 2 explains that Srivastava and her team explicitly reported that they haven’t yet identified how EGR functions in humans; therefore, the author of Text 2 wouldn’t say that Text 1’s excitement is reasonable for the stated reason. Instead, the author of Text 2 would likely characterize Text 1’s excitement as premature and overly optimistic. Choice C is incorrect because Text 1 does treat Srivastava’s team’s findings with enthusiasm; it describes the discovery of EGR in both three-banded panther worms and humans as promising and exciting. It would be illogical for the author of Text 2 to say that because most others treat the discovery with enthusiasm, Text 1’s enthusiastic characterization of the discovery is unexpected. Choice D is incorrect because Text 1 isn’t at all dismissive of Srivastava’s team’s findings; instead, Text 1 is optimistic about the EGR discovery, characterizing it as promising and exciting. There’s nothing in Text 2 to suggest that the author of Text 2 would say that Text 1’s praise for the discovery is dismissive, or disdainful.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "6977d22b",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Ecologists have long wondered how thousands of microscopic phytoplankton species can live together near ocean surfaces competing for the same resources. According to conventional wisdom, one species should emerge after outcompeting the rest. So why do so many species remain? Ecologists’ many efforts to explain this phenomenon still haven’t uncovered a satisfactory explanation.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Ecologist Michael Behrenfeld and colleagues have connected phytoplankton’s diversity to their microscopic size. Because these organisms are so tiny, they are spaced relatively far apart from each other in ocean water and, moreover, experience that water as a relatively dense substance. This in turn makes it hard for them to move around and interact with one another. Therefore, says Behrenfeld’s team, direct competition among phytoplankton probably happens much less than previously thought.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Behrenfeld and colleagues (Text 2) most likely respond to the “conventional wisdom” discussed in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By arguing that it is based on a misconception about phytoplankton species competing with one another",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By asserting that it fails to recognize that routine replenishment of ocean nutrients prevents competition between phytoplankton species",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By suggesting that their own findings help clarify how phytoplankton species are able to compete with larger organisms",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By recommending that more ecologists focus their research on how competition among phytoplankton species is increased with water density",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer because based on Text 2, it represents how Behrenfeld and colleagues would most likely respond to the “conventional wisdom” discussed in Text 1. The conventional wisdom cited holds the opinion that when there is species diversity within a phytoplankton population, “one species should emerge after outcompeting the rest”—that is, after being so successful in competing for resources that the other species vanish from the population. However, Text 2 explains that according to Behrenfeld and colleagues, phytoplankton are so small and spaced so far apart in the water that there is “much less” direct competition for resources within phytoplankton populations than scientists had previously thought. <br>Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 never discusses whether routine replenishment of ocean nutrients affects competition between phytoplankton species. Choice C is incorrect because the interspecies competition discussed in both texts is specifically between phytoplankton species, and neither text considers whether phytoplankton compete for resources with larger nonphytoplankton species. Choice D is incorrect because according to Text 2, Behrenfeld and colleagues argue that water density decreases, not increases, competition between phytoplankton species.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "6a1dc7c5",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Virginia Woolf’s 1928 novel Orlando is an oddity within her body of work. Her other major novels consist mainly of scenes of everyday life and describe their characters’ interior states in great detail, whereas Orlando propels itself through a series of fantastical events and considers its characters’ psychology more superficially. Woolf herself sometimes regarded the novel as a minor work, even admitting once that she “began it as a joke.”<br> <br>Text 2<br>Like Woolf’s other great novels, Orlando portrays how people’s memories inform their experience of the present. Like those works, it examines how people navigate social interactions shaped by gender and social class. Though it is lighter in tone—more entertaining, even—this literary “joke” nonetheless engages seriously with the themes that motivated the four or five other novels by Woolf that have achieved the status of literary classics.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the assessment of Orlando presented in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By conceding that Woolf’s talents were best suited to serious novels but asserting that the humor in Orlando is often effective",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By agreeing that Orlando is less impressive than certain other novels by Woolf but arguing that it should still be regarded as a classic",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By acknowledging that Orlando clearly differs from Woolf’s other major novels but insisting on its centrality to her body of work nonetheless",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By concurring that the reputation of Orlando as a minor work has led readers to overlook this novel but maintaining that the reputation is unearned",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      "Choice C is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to the assessment of Orlando in Text 1. Both authors agree that Orlando is unusual for Woolf: Text 1 states that the novel examines its characters’ psychologies more superficially than Woolf’s other novels do, and Text 2 describes it as being lighter in tone. However, while Text 1 calls Orlando an “oddity” and mentions that Woolf “began it as a joke,” Text 2 asserts that Orlando engages the same themes as Woolf’s other great novels. Hence, the author of Text 2 would most likely accept that Orlando differs from Woolf’s other novels but would also insist on its importance in the context of Woolf’s work as a writer. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Text 2 does suggest that the humor in Orlando is effective. However, there’s nothing in Text 2 to suggest that the author would agree that Woolf’s talents were best suited to serious novels. Rather, the author of Text 2 compares Orlando favorably to other novels by Woolf that are implied to be darker in tone. Choice B is incorrect because the author of Text 2 does not indicate that Orlando is less impressive than Woolf’s other novels, but instead points out that it engages the same themes as other novels by Woolf that are considered classics. Choice D is incorrect because there’s nothing in Text 1 or Text 2 to suggest that readers have generally ignored Orlando because of its reputation.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "84dbd633",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>The Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) mass extinction event is usually attributed solely to an asteroid impact near Chicxulub, Mexico. Some scientists argue that volcanic activity was the true cause, as the K-Pg event occurred relatively early in a long period of eruption of the Deccan Traps range that initially produced huge amounts of climate-altering gases. These dissenters note that other mass extinctions have coincided with large volcanic eruptions, while only the K-Pg event lines up with an asteroid strike.<br> <br>Text 2<br>In a 2020 study, Pincelli Hull and her colleagues analyzed ocean core samples and modeled climate changes around the K-Pg event. The team concluded that Deccan Traps gases did affect global conditions prior to the event, but that the climate returned to normal well before the extinctions began—extinctions that instead closely align with the Chicxulub impact.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Hull’s team (Text 2) most likely respond to the argument in the underlined portion of Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By agreeing that the Chicxulub impact changed the climate and that the Deccan Traps eruption caused the K-Pg event",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By declaring that the changes in climate caused by the Deccan Traps eruption weren’t the main cause of the K-Pg event",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By questioning why those scientists assume that the Chicxulub impact caused the Deccan Traps eruption",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By asserting that the Deccan Traps eruption had a more significant effect on global conditions than those scientists claim",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer because it describes how Hull’s team would most likely respond to the argument in the underlined portion of Text 1, which asserts that volcanic activity in the Deccan Traps range led to changes in the climate and caused the K-Pg mass extinction event. According to Text 2, although Hull’s team found that activity in the Deccan Traps did indeed alter the climate before the K-Pg event, the team determined that the climate had returned to normal before mass extinctions began. This finding and the observation that the K-Pg extinctions closely align with the Chicxulub asteroid impact suggest that Hull’s team would likely dispute the claim in the underlined portion of Text 1 and say that the climate changes caused by the Deccan Traps activity were not the main cause of the extinctions. <br>Choice A is incorrect because Text 2 describes how Hull’s team found that the climate had recovered from the changes brought about by the Deccan Traps activity before the K-Pg event occurred, which suggests that Hull’s team would disagree that the Deccan Traps activity caused the K-Pg event. Additionally, the claim in the underlined portion of Text 1 says nothing about how the Chicxulub impact changed the climate, so while Hull’s team might believe that the impact did in fact change the climate, they could not be said to agree with the claim in Text 1 on this point. Choice C is incorrect because there is no indication in either text that any scientists assume that the Chicxulub impact caused the Deccan Traps activity, so there is no reason to conclude that Hull’s team would question why the scientists referred to in Text 1 make such an assumption. Choice D is incorrect because Text 2 describes how Hull’s team found that the climate had recovered from the changes brought about by the Deccan Traps activity before the K-Pg event occurred, which suggests that Hull’s team would say that the Deccan Traps activity had a less enduring effect on global conditions than the scientists referenced in Text 1 believe, not that the effect on global conditions was more significant than those scientists claim.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "97e5bf55",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>In 1916, H. Dugdale Sykes disputed claims that The Two Noble Kinsmen was coauthored by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher. Sykes felt Fletcher’s contributions to the play were obvious—Fletcher had a distinct style in his other plays, so much so that lines with that style were considered sufficient evidence of Fletcher’s authorship. But for the lines not deemed to be by Fletcher, Sykes felt that their depiction of women indicated that their author was not Shakespeare but Philip Massinger.<br>Text 2<br>Scholars have accepted The Two Noble Kinsmen as coauthored by Shakespeare since the 1970s: it appears in all major one-volume editions of Shakespeare’s complete works. Though scholars disagree about who wrote what exactly, it is generally held that on the basis of style, Shakespeare wrote all of the first act and most of the last, while John Fletcher authored most of the three middle acts.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, both Sykes in Text 1 and the scholars in Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "John Fletcher’s writing has a unique, readily identifiable style.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "The women characters in John Fletcher’s plays are similar to the women characters in Philip Massinger’s plays.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "The Two Noble Kinsmen belongs in one-volume compilations of Shakespeare’s complete plays.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Philip Massinger’s style in the first and last acts of The Two Noble Kinsmen is an homage to Shakespeare’s style.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. Text 1 states that Sykes felt Fletcher’s contributions to the play were obvious because he had a distinct style in his other plays. Text 2 states that scholars generally agree “on the basis of style” that Fletcher wrote most of the three middle acts. Both texts imply that Fletcher’s writing has a unique, readily identifiable style that can be used to distinguish his work from others. <br>Choice B is incorrect. While Text 1 refers to the women in Massinger plays, neither text compares the women of Fletcher’s plays to the women of Massinger’s plays. Text 2 doesn’t mention Massinger at all. Choice C is incorrect. Text 1 states that Sykes disputed that Shakespeare coauthored the play, and implied that it was coauthored by Fletcher and Massinger instead. Sykes, therefore, would disagree that The Two Noble Kinsmen belongs in a Shakespeare compilation. Choice D is incorrect. Text 1 doesn’t suggest that Massinger was inspired by Shakespeare, and Text 2 doesn’t mention Massinger at all.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "a87c3925",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Soy sauce, made from fermented soybeans, is noted for its umami flavor. Umami—one of the five basic tastes along with sweet, bitter, salty, and sour—was formally classified when its taste receptors were discovered in the 2000s. In 2007, to define the pure umami flavor scientists Rie Ishii and Michael O’Mahony used broths made from shiitake mushrooms and kombu seaweed, and two panels of Japanese and US judges closely agreed on a description of the taste.<br> <br>Text 2<br>A 2022 experiment by Manon Jünger et al. led to a greater understanding of soy sauce’s flavor profile. The team initially presented a mixture of compounds with low molecular weights to taste testers who found it was not as salty or bitter as real soy sauce. Further analysis of soy sauce identified proteins, including dipeptides, that enhanced umami flavor and also contributed to saltiness. The team then made a mix of 50 chemical compounds that re-created soy sauce’s flavor.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, if Ishii and O’Mahony (Text 1) and Jünger et al. (Text 2) were aware of the findings of both experiments, they would most likely agree with which statement?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "On average, the diets of people in the United States tend to have fewer foods that contain certain dipeptides than the diets of people in Japan have.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Chemical compounds that activate both the umami and salty taste receptors tend to have a higher molecular weight than those that only activate umami taste receptors.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Fermentation introduces proteins responsible for the increase of umami flavor in soy sauce, and those proteins also increase the perception of saltiness.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "The broths in the 2007 experiment most likely did not have a substantial amount of the dipeptides that played a key part in the 2022 experiment.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer. Ishii and O’Mahony were trying to isolate the pure umami flavor, while Jünger was trying to recreate soy sauce, which has a mix of flavors that includes umami. Accordingly, the broths from Text 1 are not described as having any soy sauce in them—just “shiitake mushrooms and kombu seaweed.” So they probably don’t have as much of the dipeptides described in Text 2, which were found to be a key part of soy sauce’s umami-ness and its saltiness. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither text supports this. Neither text gets into the diets of people in the United States, nor the diets of people in Japan. Choice B is incorrect. Neither text supports this. Text 2 does talk about the molecular weights of chemical compounds, but there isn’t enough information provided about molecular weights in Text 1 to make an inference about what the scientists in Text 1 would say. Choice C is incorrect. Neither text supports this. Text 1 briefly mentions that soy sauce is “made from fermented soybeans,” but it never claims that fermentation is responsible for its flavor in any way. And Text 2 never mentions fermentation at all.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "c4737d6a",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Africa’s Sahara region—once a lush ecosystem—began to dry out about 8,000 years ago. A change in Earth’s orbit that affected climate has been posited as a cause of desertification, but archaeologist David Wright also attributes the shift to Neolithic peoples. He cites their adoption of pastoralism as a factor in the region drying out: the pastoralists’ livestock depleted vegetation, prompting the events that created the Sahara Desert.<br>Text 2<br>Research by Chris Brierley et al. challenges the idea that Neolithic peoples contributed to the Sahara’s desertification. Using a climate-vegetation model, the team concluded that the end of the region’s humid period occurred 500 years earlier than previously assumed. The timing suggests that Neolithic peoples didn’t exacerbate aridity in the region but, in fact, may have helped delay environmental changes with practices (e.g., selective grazing) that preserved vegetation.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Chris Brierley (Text 2) most likely respond to the discussion in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By pointing out that given the revised timeline for the end of the Sahara’s humid period, the Neolithic peoples’ mode of subsistence likely didn’t cause the region’s desertification",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By claiming that pastoralism was only one of many behaviors the Neolithic peoples took part in that may have contributed to the Sahara’s changing climate",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By insisting that pastoralism can have both beneficial and deleterious effects on a region’s vegetation and climate",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By asserting that more research needs to be conducted into factors that likely contributed to the desertification of the Sahara region",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. Brierley et al.’s research directly challenges Wright’s claim that pastoralism turned the Sahara into a desert, suggesting that, in a Sahara that turned arid 500 years earlier than previously thought, pastoral practices may have actually “preserved vegetation” rather than depleting it. <br>Choice B is incorrect. Brierley et al.’s research actually disputes the idea that any Neolithic peoples’ behaviors, including pastoralism, could have contributed to the Sahara’s changing climate. In fact, their research implies that the Neolithic peoples’ practices did not “exacerbate aridity” (i.e., make things worse), but may have slowed environmental changes. Choice C is incorrect. Brierley et al.’s research does not acknowledge that pastoralism can have deleterious (i.e., negative) effects on a region’s vegetation and climate. It only describes one possible beneficial effect: preserving vegetation through practices like selective grazing. Choice D is incorrect. Brierley et al.’s research does not call for more research into factors that likely contributed to the desertification of the Sahara region.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "c885c38b",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Conventional wisdom long held that human social systems evolved in stages, beginning with hunter-gatherers forming small bands of members with roughly equal status. The shift to agriculture about 12,000 years ago sparked population growth that led to the emergence of groups with hierarchical structures: associations of clans first, then chiefdoms, and finally, bureaucratic states.<br> <br>Text 2<br>In a 2021 book, anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow maintain that humans have always been socially flexible, alternately forming systems based on hierarchy and collective ones with decentralized leadership. The authors point to evidence that as far back as 50,000 years ago some hunter-gatherers adjusted their social structures seasonally, at times dispersing in small groups but also assembling into communities that included esteemed individuals.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Graeber and Wengrow (Text 2) most likely respond to the “conventional wisdom” presented in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By conceding the importance of hierarchical systems but asserting the greater significance of decentralized collective societies",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By disputing the idea that developments in social structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By acknowledging that hierarchical roles likely weren’t a part of social systems before the rise of agriculture",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By challenging the assumption that groupings of hunter-gatherers were among the earliest forms of social structure",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer because it describes the most likely way that Graeber and Wengrow (Text 2) would respond to the “conventional wisdom” presented in Text 1. According to Text 1, the conventional wisdom about human social systems is that they developed through stages, beginning with hunter-gatherer bands, then moving to clan associations, then chiefdoms, and finally arriving at states with bureaucratic structures. Text 2 indicates that Graeber and Wengrow believe that human social systems have been flexible, shifting between different types of structures, including both hierarchical and collective systems, and that these shifts may have even occurred seasonally. This suggests that Graeber and Wengrow would dispute the idea that developments in social structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages. <br>Choice A is incorrect because nothing in Text 2 suggests that Graeber and Wengrow believe that decentralized collective societies are more significant than hierarchical systems. Text 2 is focused on Graeber and Wengrow’s view that humans have flexibly shifted among various social structures, not on the importance of particular structures relative to others. Choice C is incorrect because Text 2 doesn’t include any information suggesting that Graeber and Wengrow believe that hierarchies didn’t emerge until after the rise of agriculture. In fact, Text 2 indicates that Graeber and Wengrow cite evidence suggesting that some hunter-gatherer groups formed social structures with hierarchical elements (“communities that included esteemed individuals”) 50,000 years ago, long before the rise of agriculture, which Text 1 says occurred around 12,000 years ago. Choice D is incorrect because there’s no information in Text 2 suggesting that Graeber and Wengrow would challenge the assumption that groupings of hunter-gatherers were among the earliest forms of social structure. Although Text 1 does indicate that hunter-gatherer groups are assumed to be the earliest human social system, Text 2 says only that Graeber and Wengrow believe that some hunter-gatherer groups made use of different social structures at different times. Text 2 doesn’t imply that Graeber and Wengrow doubt that hunter-gatherer groups preceded most other social structures.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "d0198544",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>In 2007, a team led by Alice Storey analyzed a chicken bone found in El Arenal, Chile, dating it to 1321–1407 CE—over a century before Europeans invaded the region, bringing their own chickens. Storey also found that the El Arenal chicken shared a unique genetic mutation with the ancient chicken breeds of the Polynesian Islands in the Pacific. Thus, Polynesian peoples, not later Europeans, probably first introduced chickens to South America. <br> <br>Text 2<br>An Australian research team weakened the case for a Polynesian origin for the El Arenal chicken by confirming that the mutation identified by Storey has occurred in breeds from around the world. More recently, though, a team led by Agusto Luzuriaga-Neira found that South American chicken breeds and Polynesian breeds share other genetic markers that European breeds lack. Thus, the preponderance of evidence now favors a Polynesian origin.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By broadly agreeing with the claim but objecting that the timeline it presupposes conflicts with the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey’s team",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By faulting the claim for implying that domestic animals couldn’t have been transferred from South America to the Polynesian Islands as well",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By critiquing the claim for being based on an assumption that before the European invasion of South America, the chickens of Europe were genetically uniform",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By noting that while the claim is persuasive, the findings of Luzuriaga-Neira’s team provide stronger evidence for it than the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey do",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer because it accurately describes how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1. Text 1 indicates that Storey found a genetic mutation in South American chickens from before the European invasion and in Polynesian chickens, which implies that chickens were first brought to South America by Polynesian people. Text 2 explains that the genetic mutation Storey found is in chickens from all over the world, thus undercutting the mutation as evidence of a Polynesian origin. However, Text 2 goes on to say “<strong>m</strong>ore recently” Luzuriaga-Neira and colleagues found multiple genetic markers shared by South American and Polynesian chickens but “that European breeds lack,” which strongly suggests a Polynesian origin for the South American chickens. This indicates that the author of Text 2 believes Luzuriaga-Neira’s evidence for a Polynesian origin is compelling while Storey’s evidence has been undermined. Thus, the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with the underlined statement and believes Luzuriaga-Neira and colleagues’ evidence for the statement is stronger than Storey’s evidence is. <br>Choice A is incorrect because both texts indicate that chickens were introduced to South America before the arrival of Europeans. Text 1 states that the El Arenal chicken bone dates from “1321–1407 CE—over a century before Europeans invaded the region” and concludes that these chickens were likely brought to South America by Polynesians. While Text 2 is not as explicit about the time period as Text 1 is, nothing in Text 2 undermines the timing of events ascribed to Storey’s account in Text 1. Choice B is incorrect because both texts agree that chickens were first brought to South America by Polynesian peoples (the underlined claim), and nothing in Text 2 suggests that this claim is in any way deficient because the possibility that animals could have been transferred from South America to Polynesia was not explicitly addressed. Choice C is incorrect because the criticism that Text 2 raises about the ideas in Text 1 is specifically about whether the single genetic mutation cited by Storey in fact supports the idea of a Polynesian origin for South American chickens. There is nothing in Text 2 to suggest that the underlined sentence (Storey’s conclusion) is deficient because it is based on an assumption about the genetic uniformity of European chickens.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "d6c77ae5",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Astronomer Mark Holland and colleagues examined four white dwarfs—small, dense remnants of past stars—in order to determine the composition of exoplanets that used to orbit those stars. Studying wavelengths of light in the white dwarf atmospheres, the team reported that traces of elements such as lithium and sodium support the presence of exoplanets with continental crusts similar to Earth’s.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Past studies of white dwarf atmospheres have concluded that certain exoplanets had continental crusts. Geologist Keith Putirka and astronomer Siyi Xu argue that those studies unduly emphasize atmospheric traces of lithium and other individual elements as signifiers of the types of rock found on Earth. The studies don’t adequately account for different minerals made up of various ratios of those elements, and the possibility of rock types not found on Earth that contain those minerals.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Putirka and Xu (Text 2) most likely characterize the conclusion presented in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "As unexpected, because it was widely believed at the time that white dwarf exoplanets lack continental crusts",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "As premature, because researchers have only just begun trying to determine what kinds of crusts white dwarf exoplanets had",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "As questionable, because it rests on an incomplete consideration of potential sources of the elements detected in white dwarf atmospheres",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "As puzzling, because it’s unusual to successfully detect lithium and sodium when analyzing wavelengths of light in white dwarf atmospheres",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      "Choice C is the best answer because it reflects how Putirka and Xu (Text 2) would likely characterize the conclusion presented in Text 1. Text 1 discusses a study by Mark Holland and colleagues in which they detected traces of lithium and sodium in the atmospheres of four white dwarf stars. The team claims that this supports the idea that exoplanets with continental crusts like Earth’s once orbited these stars. Text 2 introduces Putirka and Xu, who indicate that sodium and lithium are present in several different minerals and that some of those minerals might exist in types of rock that are not found on Earth. Therefore, Putirka and Xu would likely describe the conclusion in Text 1 as questionable because it does not consider that lithium and sodium are also found in rocks that are not like Earth’s continental crust. <br>Choice A is incorrect because the texts do not indicate how widely held any of the viewpoints described are. Choice B is incorrect because neither text discusses how new this area of study is. Choice D is incorrect because neither text discusses how likely lithium and sodium are to be detected by analyzing wavelengths of light.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "d72b325e",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times. <br>Text 2<br>In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools’ species diversity.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research team’s results.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research team’s findings.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research team’s study.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      'Choice C is the best answer. This is how Cáceres and co. would most likely describe the view presented in Text 1. The view in Text 1 is that historical diversity affects how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes. But Cáceres and co. did not get this result: they found no difference in eventual diversity between a zooplankton pool that started out diverse and a zooplankton pool that started out with only a single species.<br>Choice A is incorrect. Cáceres and co. would probably not describe the view presented in Text 1 this way. The view in Text 1 is that historical diversity affects how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes. Cáceres and co’s findings directly undermine this view: they found no difference in eventual diversity between a zooplankton pool that started out diverse and a zooplankton pool that started out with only a single species. Choice B is incorrect. Cáceres and co. would probably not describe the view presented in Text 1 this way. Their experiment was designed to test this hypothesis, and their findings were "contrary to their expectations." In other words, before the study, they predicted the theory was correct. Choice D is incorrect. Cáceres and co. would not describe the view presented in Text 1 this way. Their research finding directly undermines the view presented in Text 1: so it definitely doesn’t hold true in conditions like those in the study.',
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "de2c2f57",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>The fossil record suggests that mammoths went extinct around 11 thousand years (kyr) ago. In a 2021 study of environmental DNA (eDNA)—genetic material shed into the environment by organisms—in the Arctic, Yucheng Wang and colleagues found mammoth eDNA in sedimentary layers formed millennia later, around 4 kyr ago. To account for this discrepancy, Joshua H. Miller and Carl Simpson proposed that arctic temperatures could preserve a mammoth carcass on the surface, allowing it to leach DNA into the environment, for several thousand years.<br>Text 2<br>Wang and colleagues concede that eDNA contains DNA from both living organisms and carcasses, but for DNA to leach from remains over several millennia requires that the remains be perpetually on the surface. Scavengers and weathering in the Arctic, however, are likely to break down surface remains well before a thousand years have passed.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Which choice best describes how Text 1 and Text 2 relate to each other?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "Text 1 discusses two approaches to studying mammoth extinction without advocating for either, whereas Text 2 advocates for one approach over the other.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "Text 1 presents findings by Wang and colleagues and gives another research team’s attempt to explain those findings, whereas Text 2 provides additional detail that calls that explanation into question.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "Text 1 describes Wang and colleagues’ study and a critique of their methodology, whereas Text 2 offers additional details showing that methodology to be sound.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "Text 1 argues that new research has undermined the standard view of when mammoths went extinct, whereas Text 2 suggests a way to reconcile the standard view with that new research.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "B",
    explanation:
      "Choice B is the best answer. Text 1 introduces Wang and colleagues’ study and its surprising results, and then mentions Miller and Simpson’s hypothesis as a possible way to explain them. Text 2, however, challenges Miller and Simpson’s hypothesis by pointing out the difficulties of preserving mammoth carcasses on the surface for thousands of years: “scavengers and weathering” are the additional details that complicate the Miller/Simpson hypothesis. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither text compares two different approaches for studying mammoth extinction. Text 1 describes one study and one hypothesis pertaining to it. Text 2 critiques that hypothesis. Choice C is incorrect. Text 1 does not describe a critique of Wang and colleagues’ methodology, but rather an interpretation of their results by Miller and Simpson. Text 2 does not offer additional details showing that methodology to be sound, but rather casts doubt on the Miller/Simpson explanation. Choice D is incorrect. Both components mentioned here (the new “undermining” research and the theory for reconciling this discovery) are contained in Text 1. Text 2 then shows how the attempt to reconcile the standard view and new research is flawed, and still fails to explain the discrepancy.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "e4e2aeb3",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Like the work of Ralph Ellison before her, Toni Morrison’s novels feature scenes in which characters deliver sermons of such length and verbal dexterity that for a time, the text exchanges the formal parameters of fiction for those of oral literature. Given the many other echoes of Ellison in Morrison’s novels, both in structure and prose style, these scenes suggest Ellison’s direct influence on Morrison.<br>Text 2<br>In their destabilizing effect on literary form, the sermons in Morrison’s works recall those in Ellison’s. Yet literature by Black Americans abounds in moments where interpolated speech erodes the division between oral and written forms that literature in English has traditionally observed. Morrison’s use of the sermon is attributable not only to the influence of Ellison but also to a community-wide strategy of resistance to externally imposed literary conventions.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize the underlined claim in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "As failing to consider Ellison’s and Morrison’s equivalent uses of the sermon within the wider cultural context in which they wrote",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "As misunderstanding the function of sermons in novels by Black American writers other than Ellison and Morrison",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "As disregarding points of structural and stylistic divergence between the works of Ellison and those of Morrison",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "As being indebted to the tradition of resisting literary conventions that privilege written forms, such as novels, over sermons and other oral forms",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "A",
    explanation:
      "Choice A is the best answer. The author of Text 2 argues that Morrison’s use of the sermon is not only influenced by Ellison, but also by a “community-wide strategy of resistance” to literary conventions practiced by Black American authors. Ellison, Text 2 alleges, is only one of many influences on Morrison. <br>Choice B is incorrect. Neither text specifically mentions sermons in works by authors other than Morrison or Ellison, only a tendency towards eroding “the division between oral and written forms” among Black American writers. Choice C is incorrect. Both texts describe similarities between the works of Ellison and Morrison, and neither points out instances of divergence. Text 2 simply suggests that Morrison was influenced by more than just Ellison. Choice D is incorrect. While Text 2 does discuss Morrison’s resistance to certain literary conventions, it’s unclear what it would mean for the underlined claim to be “indebted” to that tradition. This choice recycles language from the text, but not in a way that makes any coherent point.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "f3c45b4f",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Fossils of the hominin Australopithecus africanus have been found in the Sterkfontein Caves of South Africa, but assigning an age to the fossils is challenging because of the unreliability of dating methods in this context. The geology of Sterkfontein has caused soil layers from different periods to mix, impeding stratigraphic dating, and dates cannot be reliably imputed from those of nearby animal bones since the bones may have been relocated by flooding.<br>Text 2<br>Archaeologists used new cosmogenic nuclide dating techniques to reevaluate the ages of A. africanus fossils found in the Sterkfontein Caves. This technique involves analyzing the cosmogenic nucleotides in the breccia—the matrix of rock fragments immediately surrounding the fossils. The researchers assert that this approach avoids the potential for misdating associated with assigning ages based on Sterkfontein’s soil layers or animal bones.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the researchers in Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined portion in Text 1?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "They would emphasize the fact that the A. africanus fossils found in the Sterkfontein Caves may have been corrupted in some way over the years.",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "They would contend that if analyses of surrounding layers and bones in the Sterkfontein Caves were combined, then the dating of the fossils there would be more accurate.",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "They would argue that their techniques are better suited than other methods to the unique challenges posed by the Sterkfontein Caves.",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "They would claim that cosmogenic nuclide dating is reliable in the context of the Sterkfontein Caves because it is applied to the fossils directly.",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "C",
    explanation:
      'Choice C is the best answer. Text 2 states that the researchers used cosmogenic nuclide dating to "avoid the potential for misdating" caused by the geology of Sterkfontein, which Text 1 describes as "challenging" and unreliable.<br>Choice A is incorrect. Neither text suggests that the A. africanus fossils have been "corrupted," but only that traditional dating methods are difficult in Sterkfontein because of floods and soil mixing where the fossils were found. Nothing is implied to have compromised the fossils themselves. Choice B is incorrect. This choice misreads Text 2. Text 2 agrees that stratigraphy and other methods are prone to error in the context of Sterkfontein: there’s a "potential for misdating" when evaluating age based on soil layers and bones. Choice D is incorrect. Text 2 does not state that cosmogenic nuclide dating is applied to the fossils directly but rather to the breccia that surrounds them.',
    hasFigure: false,
  },
  {
    id: "f7c02e89",
    type: "mcq",
    passage:
      "<p>Text 1<br>Films and television shows commonly include a long list of credits naming the people involved in a production. Credit sequences may not be exciting, but they generally ensure that everyone’s contributions are duly acknowledged. Because they are highly standardized, film and television credits are also valuable to anyone researching the careers of pioneering cast and crew members who have worked in the mediums.<br> <br>Text 2<br>Video game scholars face a major challenge in the industry’s failure to consistently credit the artists, designers, and other contributors involved in making video games. Without a reliable record of which people worked on which games, questions about the medium’s development can be difficult to answer, and the accomplishments of all but its best-known innovators can be difficult to trace.</p>",
    questionHtml:
      "Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the discussion in Text 2?",
    choices: [
      {
        label: "A",
        text: "By recommending that the scholars mentioned in Text 2 consider employing the methods regularly used by film and television researchers",
      },
      {
        label: "B",
        text: "By pointing out that credits have a different intended purpose in film and television than in the medium addressed by the scholars mentioned in Text 2",
      },
      {
        label: "C",
        text: "By suggesting that the scholars mentioned in Text 2 rely more heavily on credits as a source of information than film and television researchers do",
      },
      {
        label: "D",
        text: "By observing that a widespread practice in film and television largely prevents the kind of problem faced by the scholars mentioned in Text 2",
      },
    ],
    correctAnswer: "D",
    explanation:
      "Choice D is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 1 would most likely respond to Text 2 based on the information provided. Text 2 discusses how the inconsistent use of credits to identify the contributors to video games can pose an obstacle to scholars of the medium, who rely on such credits to answer questions about the medium’s development. Text 1 notes that in film and television, on the other hand, credits are used consistently and are valuable to researchers studying the cast and crew members in these mediums. Since Text 1 asserts how the consistent use of credits benefits scholars of film and television, it can be inferred that this text’s author would respond to the discussion in Text 2 by observing that the kind of problem faced by scholars of video games—the inability to know who contributed to a particular production and how—is, in film and television studies, largely prevented by the widespread practice of credits in these mediums. <br>Choice A is incorrect. Although Text 1 discusses a method used by film and television researchers—namely, relying on credits to research the careers of cast and crew members—the author doesn’t explicitly recommend that or any other method. Moreover, Text 1 states that films and television shows themselves, not their researchers, regularly use the method of listing credits. Choice B is incorrect. It can be inferred from Text 2 that when video games do feature credits, they have essentially the same function as credits in film and television—namely, to identify the individuals who worked on a particular production. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author of Text 1 would characterize video game credits as differing in purpose from film and television credits. Choice C is incorrect because, as Text 2 explains, credits are not consistently used in video games. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author of Text 1 would argue that scholars of the medium discussed in this text—video games—rely more heavily on credits than scholars of film and television, two mediums where credits consistently appear.",
    hasFigure: false,
  },
];
