Reading Comprehension Test 6

What part does the fourth paragraph play in the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern life can be stressful -- in the family as anywhere else in our fast-paced society. And yet, with all the challenges and concerns about relationships, marriage and raising children, people in the United States today have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. In comparing the present with the past -- the so-called "good old days" -- we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.

Let's consider pieces of evidence: Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any point in the past 100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has declined since the early 1900s, as more and more women enter the workforce, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today in the United States -- including those who work part- or full-time -- spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did.

If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. If there is one lesson to be drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families always have to play "catch-up" with a changing world.

Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. In the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began re-entering the workforce in ever-larger numbers. For a few decades, the decline in child labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. And so the male-breadwinner family surfaced. In the 1920s, for the first time, a bare majority of U.S. children grew up in families in which the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of to work. This pattern continued for decades. During the 1950s, almost two-thirds of the nation's children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm -- a trend not likely to be reversed in this new century.

What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to determine the shape of their own lives. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to raising children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. Thus, on the one hand, there has been a steady rise in the U.S. divorce rate since 1900. But on the other, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching their 40th and 50th anniversaries than ever before. Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children as well. Studies have shown that kids do better in their own right when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether that satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from full-time employment. And largely because of women's new roles at work, men are assuming more of a role at home.

Although most men still do less housework than their wives, that gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985. Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their spouses, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and childcare. They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school -- especially in math and science.

Even some of the choices that worry people the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, and in many cases marital breakdown causes serious problems for both adults and kids. Yet when parents minimize conflict, family bonds can be maintained. And many families are doing this. More non-custodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support receipts are rising. A lower proportion of children from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades. And stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than cutting them off from one side of the family.

As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that distinguish families in the United States today, we find that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.

The biggest problem facing most families in the United States at the outset of the new century is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. Work policies reflect an earlier era, when most mothers weren't in the workforce and most fathers weren't involved in the joys of childcare. School schedules often seem designed for decades ago, when children needed to be home to help with chores or to be employed themselves.

What is the tone of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern life can be stressful -- in the family as anywhere else in our fast-paced society. And yet, with all the challenges and concerns about relationships, marriage and raising children, people in the United States today have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. In comparing the present with the past -- the so-called "good old days" -- we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.

Let's consider pieces of evidence: Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any point in the past 100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has declined since the early 1900s, as more and more women enter the workforce, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today in the United States -- including those who work part- or full-time -- spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did.

If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. If there is one lesson to be drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families always have to play "catch-up" with a changing world.

Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. In the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began re-entering the workforce in ever-larger numbers. For a few decades, the decline in child labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. And so the male-breadwinner family surfaced. In the 1920s, for the first time, a bare majority of U.S. children grew up in families in which the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of to work. This pattern continued for decades. During the 1950s, almost two-thirds of the nation's children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm -- a trend not likely to be reversed in this new century.

What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to determine the shape of their own lives. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to raising children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. Thus, on the one hand, there has been a steady rise in the U.S. divorce rate since 1900. But on the other, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching their 40th and 50th anniversaries than ever before. Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children as well. Studies have shown that kids do better in their own right when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether that satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from full-time employment. And largely because of women's new roles at work, men are assuming more of a role at home.

Although most men still do less housework than their wives, that gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985. Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their spouses, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and childcare. They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school -- especially in math and science.

Even some of the choices that worry people the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, and in many cases marital breakdown causes serious problems for both adults and kids. Yet when parents minimize conflict, family bonds can be maintained. And many families are doing this. More non-custodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support receipts are rising. A lower proportion of children from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades. And stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than cutting them off from one side of the family.

As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that distinguish families in the United States today, we find that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.

The biggest problem facing most families in the United States at the outset of the new century is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. Work policies reflect an earlier era, when most mothers weren't in the workforce and most fathers weren't involved in the joys of childcare. School schedules often seem designed for decades ago, when children needed to be home to help with chores or to be employed themselves.

Which is not a direct consequence of women entering the work field?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern life can be stressful -- in the family as anywhere else in our fast-paced society. And yet, with all the challenges and concerns about relationships, marriage and raising children, people in the United States today have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. In comparing the present with the past -- the so-called "good old days" -- we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.

Let's consider pieces of evidence: Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any point in the past 100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has declined since the early 1900s, as more and more women enter the workforce, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today in the United States -- including those who work part- or full-time -- spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did.

If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. If there is one lesson to be drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families always have to play "catch-up" with a changing world.

Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. In the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began re-entering the workforce in ever-larger numbers. For a few decades, the decline in child labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. And so the male-breadwinner family surfaced. In the 1920s, for the first time, a bare majority of U.S. children grew up in families in which the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of to work. This pattern continued for decades. During the 1950s, almost two-thirds of the nation's children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm -- a trend not likely to be reversed in this new century.

What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to determine the shape of their own lives. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to raising children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. Thus, on the one hand, there has been a steady rise in the U.S. divorce rate since 1900. But on the other, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching their 40th and 50th anniversaries than ever before. Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children as well. Studies have shown that kids do better in their own right when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether that satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from full-time employment. And largely because of women's new roles at work, men are assuming more of a role at home.

Although most men still do less housework than their wives, that gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985. Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their spouses, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and childcare. They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school -- especially in math and science.

Even some of the choices that worry people the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, and in many cases marital breakdown causes serious problems for both adults and kids. Yet when parents minimize conflict, family bonds can be maintained. And many families are doing this. More non-custodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support receipts are rising. A lower proportion of children from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades. And stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than cutting them off from one side of the family.

As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that distinguish families in the United States today, we find that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.

The biggest problem facing most families in the United States at the outset of the new century is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. Work policies reflect an earlier era, when most mothers weren't in the workforce and most fathers weren't involved in the joys of childcare. School schedules often seem designed for decades ago, when children needed to be home to help with chores or to be employed themselves.

What can be inferred from the passage?

I. Higher divorce rates is not a direct reflection of pathology in a family.
II. Relationship of the children with their father is directly contingent upon whether the mother is a full time mother or full-time career woman.
III. Helping with the chores at home increase the sense of responsibility amongst children.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern life can be stressful -- in the family as anywhere else in our fast-paced society. And yet, with all the challenges and concerns about relationships, marriage and raising children, people in the United States today have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. In comparing the present with the past -- the so-called "good old days" -- we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.

Let's consider pieces of evidence: Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any point in the past 100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has declined since the early 1900s, as more and more women enter the workforce, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today in the United States -- including those who work part- or full-time -- spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did.

If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. If there is one lesson to be drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families always have to play "catch-up" with a changing world.

Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. In the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began re-entering the workforce in ever-larger numbers. For a few decades, the decline in child labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. And so the male-breadwinner family surfaced. In the 1920s, for the first time, a bare majority of U.S. children grew up in families in which the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of to work. This pattern continued for decades. During the 1950s, almost two-thirds of the nation's children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm -- a trend not likely to be reversed in this new century.

What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to determine the shape of their own lives. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to raising children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. Thus, on the one hand, there has been a steady rise in the U.S. divorce rate since 1900. But on the other, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching their 40th and 50th anniversaries than ever before. Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children as well. Studies have shown that kids do better in their own right when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether that satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from full-time employment. And largely because of women's new roles at work, men are assuming more of a role at home.

Although most men still do less housework than their wives, that gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985. Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their spouses, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and childcare. They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school -- especially in math and science.

Even some of the choices that worry people the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, and in many cases marital breakdown causes serious problems for both adults and kids. Yet when parents minimize conflict, family bonds can be maintained. And many families are doing this. More non-custodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support receipts are rising. A lower proportion of children from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades. And stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than cutting them off from one side of the family.

As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that distinguish families in the United States today, we find that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.

The biggest problem facing most families in the United States at the outset of the new century is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. Work policies reflect an earlier era, when most mothers weren't in the workforce and most fathers weren't involved in the joys of childcare. School schedules often seem designed for decades ago, when children needed to be home to help with chores or to be employed themselves.

What is the main purpose of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern life can be stressful -- in the family as anywhere else in our fast-paced society. And yet, with all the challenges and concerns about relationships, marriage and raising children, people in the United States today have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. In comparing the present with the past -- the so-called "good old days" -- we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.

Let's consider pieces of evidence: Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any point in the past 100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has declined since the early 1900s, as more and more women enter the workforce, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today in the United States -- including those who work part- or full-time -- spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did.

If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. If there is one lesson to be drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families always have to play "catch-up" with a changing world.

Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. In the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began re-entering the workforce in ever-larger numbers. For a few decades, the decline in child labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. And so the male-breadwinner family surfaced. In the 1920s, for the first time, a bare majority of U.S. children grew up in families in which the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of to work. This pattern continued for decades. During the 1950s, almost two-thirds of the nation's children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm -- a trend not likely to be reversed in this new century.

What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to determine the shape of their own lives. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to raising children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. Thus, on the one hand, there has been a steady rise in the U.S. divorce rate since 1900. But on the other, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching their 40th and 50th anniversaries than ever before. Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children as well. Studies have shown that kids do better in their own right when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether that satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from full-time employment. And largely because of women's new roles at work, men are assuming more of a role at home.

Although most men still do less housework than their wives, that gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985. Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their spouses, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and childcare. They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school -- especially in math and science.

Even some of the choices that worry people the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, and in many cases marital breakdown causes serious problems for both adults and kids. Yet when parents minimize conflict, family bonds can be maintained. And many families are doing this. More non-custodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support receipts are rising. A lower proportion of children from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades. And stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than cutting them off from one side of the family.

As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that distinguish families in the United States today, we find that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.

The biggest problem facing most families in the United States at the outset of the new century is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. Work policies reflect an earlier era, when most mothers weren't in the workforce and most fathers weren't involved in the joys of childcare. School schedules often seem designed for decades ago, when children needed to be home to help with chores or to be employed themselves.

The Transcendentalist Movement believed in all of the following except ____________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

The Transcendentalist movement was a reaction against 18th century rationalism and a manifestation of the general humanitarian trend of 19th century thought. The movement was based on a fundamental belief in the unity of the world and God. The soul of each individual was thought to be identical with the world -- a microcosm of the world itself. The doctrine of self- reliance and individualism developed through the belief in the identification of the individual soul with God.

Transcendentalism was intimately connected with Concord, a small New England village 32 kilometers west of Boston. Concord was the first inland settlement of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony. Surrounded by forest, it was and remains a peaceful town close enough to Boston's lectures, bookstores, and colleges to be intensely cultivated, but far enough away to be serene. Concord was the site of the first battle of the American Revolution, and Ralph Waldo Emerson's poem commemorating the battle, "Concord Hymn," has one of the most famous opening stanzas in American literature:

 By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world. 

Concord was the first rural artist's colony, and the first place to offer a spiritual and cultural alternative to American materialism. It was a place of high-minded conversation and simple living (Emerson and Henry David Thoreau both had vegetable gardens). Emerson, who moved to Concord in 1834, and Thoreau are most closely associated with the town, but the locale also attracted the novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, the feminist writer Margaret Fuller, the educator (and father of novelist Louisa May Alcott) Bronson Alcott, and the poet William Ellery Channing. The Transcendental Club was loosely organized in 1836 and included, at various times, Emerson, Thoreau, Fuller, Channing, Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson (a leading minister), Theodore Parker (abolitionist and minister), and others.

The Transcendentalists published a quarterly magazine, The Dial, which lasted four years and was first edited by Margaret Fuller and later by Emerson. Reform efforts engaged them as well as literature. A number of Transcendentalists were abolitionists, and some were involved in experimental utopian communities such as nearby Brook Farm (described in Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance) and Fruitlands.

Unlike many European groups, the Transcendentalists never issued a manifesto. They insisted on individual differences -- on the unique viewpoint of the individual. American Transcendental Romantics pushed radical individualism to the extreme. American writers often saw themselves as lonely explorers outside society and convention. The American hero -- like Herman Melville's Captain Ahab, or Mark Twain's Huck Finn, or Edgar Allan Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym -- typically faced risk, or even certain destruction, in the pursuit of metaphysical self-discovery. For the Romantic American writer, nothing was a given. Literary and social conventions, far from being helpful, were dangerous. There was tremendous pressure to discover an authentic literary form, content, and voice -- all at the same time. It is clear from the many masterpieces produced in the three decades before the U.S. Civil War (1861-65) that American writers rose to the challenge. 

From the passage, it can be inferred that the movement in precedence before Transcendentalism was ______________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

The Transcendentalist movement was a reaction against 18th century rationalism and a manifestation of the general humanitarian trend of 19th century thought. The movement was based on a fundamental belief in the unity of the world and God. The soul of each individual was thought to be identical with the world -- a microcosm of the world itself. The doctrine of self- reliance and individualism developed through the belief in the identification of the individual soul with God.

Transcendentalism was intimately connected with Concord, a small New England village 32 kilometers west of Boston. Concord was the first inland settlement of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony. Surrounded by forest, it was and remains a peaceful town close enough to Boston's lectures, bookstores, and colleges to be intensely cultivated, but far enough away to be serene. Concord was the site of the first battle of the American Revolution, and Ralph Waldo Emerson's poem commemorating the battle, "Concord Hymn," has one of the most famous opening stanzas in American literature:

 By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world. 

Concord was the first rural artist's colony, and the first place to offer a spiritual and cultural alternative to American materialism. It was a place of high-minded conversation and simple living (Emerson and Henry David Thoreau both had vegetable gardens). Emerson, who moved to Concord in 1834, and Thoreau are most closely associated with the town, but the locale also attracted the novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, the feminist writer Margaret Fuller, the educator (and father of novelist Louisa May Alcott) Bronson Alcott, and the poet William Ellery Channing. The Transcendental Club was loosely organized in 1836 and included, at various times, Emerson, Thoreau, Fuller, Channing, Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson (a leading minister), Theodore Parker (abolitionist and minister), and others.

The Transcendentalists published a quarterly magazine, The Dial, which lasted four years and was first edited by Margaret Fuller and later by Emerson. Reform efforts engaged them as well as literature. A number of Transcendentalists were abolitionists, and some were involved in experimental utopian communities such as nearby Brook Farm (described in Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance) and Fruitlands.

Unlike many European groups, the Transcendentalists never issued a manifesto. They insisted on individual differences -- on the unique viewpoint of the individual. American Transcendental Romantics pushed radical individualism to the extreme. American writers often saw themselves as lonely explorers outside society and convention. The American hero -- like Herman Melville's Captain Ahab, or Mark Twain's Huck Finn, or Edgar Allan Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym -- typically faced risk, or even certain destruction, in the pursuit of metaphysical self-discovery. For the Romantic American writer, nothing was a given. Literary and social conventions, far from being helpful, were dangerous. There was tremendous pressure to discover an authentic literary form, content, and voice -- all at the same time. It is clear from the many masterpieces produced in the three decades before the U.S. Civil War (1861-65) that American writers rose to the challenge. 

What made Concord perfect for the evolution of Transcendentalism?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

The Transcendentalist movement was a reaction against 18th century rationalism and a manifestation of the general humanitarian trend of 19th century thought. The movement was based on a fundamental belief in the unity of the world and God. The soul of each individual was thought to be identical with the world -- a microcosm of the world itself. The doctrine of self- reliance and individualism developed through the belief in the identification of the individual soul with God.

Transcendentalism was intimately connected with Concord, a small New England village 32 kilometers west of Boston. Concord was the first inland settlement of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony. Surrounded by forest, it was and remains a peaceful town close enough to Boston's lectures, bookstores, and colleges to be intensely cultivated, but far enough away to be serene. Concord was the site of the first battle of the American Revolution, and Ralph Waldo Emerson's poem commemorating the battle, "Concord Hymn," has one of the most famous opening stanzas in American literature:

 By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world. 

Concord was the first rural artist's colony, and the first place to offer a spiritual and cultural alternative to American materialism. It was a place of high-minded conversation and simple living (Emerson and Henry David Thoreau both had vegetable gardens). Emerson, who moved to Concord in 1834, and Thoreau are most closely associated with the town, but the locale also attracted the novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, the feminist writer Margaret Fuller, the educator (and father of novelist Louisa May Alcott) Bronson Alcott, and the poet William Ellery Channing. The Transcendental Club was loosely organized in 1836 and included, at various times, Emerson, Thoreau, Fuller, Channing, Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson (a leading minister), Theodore Parker (abolitionist and minister), and others.

The Transcendentalists published a quarterly magazine, The Dial, which lasted four years and was first edited by Margaret Fuller and later by Emerson. Reform efforts engaged them as well as literature. A number of Transcendentalists were abolitionists, and some were involved in experimental utopian communities such as nearby Brook Farm (described in Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance) and Fruitlands.

Unlike many European groups, the Transcendentalists never issued a manifesto. They insisted on individual differences -- on the unique viewpoint of the individual. American Transcendental Romantics pushed radical individualism to the extreme. American writers often saw themselves as lonely explorers outside society and convention. The American hero -- like Herman Melville's Captain Ahab, or Mark Twain's Huck Finn, or Edgar Allan Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym -- typically faced risk, or even certain destruction, in the pursuit of metaphysical self-discovery. For the Romantic American writer, nothing was a given. Literary and social conventions, far from being helpful, were dangerous. There was tremendous pressure to discover an authentic literary form, content, and voice -- all at the same time. It is clear from the many masterpieces produced in the three decades before the U.S. Civil War (1861-65) that American writers rose to the challenge. 

Which of the following statments is true according to the passage?
I. Transcendentalism advocated certain fundamentals, which the writers incorporated in their works.
II. The norms were supposed to be too banal for the development of creativity.
III. The advocated of the movement had a supercilious attitude towards extremity.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

The Transcendentalist movement was a reaction against 18th century rationalism and a manifestation of the general humanitarian trend of 19th century thought. The movement was based on a fundamental belief in the unity of the world and God. The soul of each individual was thought to be identical with the world -- a microcosm of the world itself. The doctrine of self- reliance and individualism developed through the belief in the identification of the individual soul with God.

Transcendentalism was intimately connected with Concord, a small New England village 32 kilometers west of Boston. Concord was the first inland settlement of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony. Surrounded by forest, it was and remains a peaceful town close enough to Boston's lectures, bookstores, and colleges to be intensely cultivated, but far enough away to be serene. Concord was the site of the first battle of the American Revolution, and Ralph Waldo Emerson's poem commemorating the battle, "Concord Hymn," has one of the most famous opening stanzas in American literature:

 By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world. 

Concord was the first rural artist's colony, and the first place to offer a spiritual and cultural alternative to American materialism. It was a place of high-minded conversation and simple living (Emerson and Henry David Thoreau both had vegetable gardens). Emerson, who moved to Concord in 1834, and Thoreau are most closely associated with the town, but the locale also attracted the novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, the feminist writer Margaret Fuller, the educator (and father of novelist Louisa May Alcott) Bronson Alcott, and the poet William Ellery Channing. The Transcendental Club was loosely organized in 1836 and included, at various times, Emerson, Thoreau, Fuller, Channing, Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson (a leading minister), Theodore Parker (abolitionist and minister), and others.

The Transcendentalists published a quarterly magazine, The Dial, which lasted four years and was first edited by Margaret Fuller and later by Emerson. Reform efforts engaged them as well as literature. A number of Transcendentalists were abolitionists, and some were involved in experimental utopian communities such as nearby Brook Farm (described in Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance) and Fruitlands.

Unlike many European groups, the Transcendentalists never issued a manifesto. They insisted on individual differences -- on the unique viewpoint of the individual. American Transcendental Romantics pushed radical individualism to the extreme. American writers often saw themselves as lonely explorers outside society and convention. The American hero -- like Herman Melville's Captain Ahab, or Mark Twain's Huck Finn, or Edgar Allan Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym -- typically faced risk, or even certain destruction, in the pursuit of metaphysical self-discovery. For the Romantic American writer, nothing was a given. Literary and social conventions, far from being helpful, were dangerous. There was tremendous pressure to discover an authentic literary form, content, and voice -- all at the same time. It is clear from the many masterpieces produced in the three decades before the U.S. Civil War (1861-65) that American writers rose to the challenge. 

The primary purpose of the passage is to _________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

The Transcendentalist movement was a reaction against 18th century rationalism and a manifestation of the general humanitarian trend of 19th century thought. The movement was based on a fundamental belief in the unity of the world and God. The soul of each individual was thought to be identical with the world -- a microcosm of the world itself. The doctrine of self- reliance and individualism developed through the belief in the identification of the individual soul with God.

Transcendentalism was intimately connected with Concord, a small New England village 32 kilometers west of Boston. Concord was the first inland settlement of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony. Surrounded by forest, it was and remains a peaceful town close enough to Boston's lectures, bookstores, and colleges to be intensely cultivated, but far enough away to be serene. Concord was the site of the first battle of the American Revolution, and Ralph Waldo Emerson's poem commemorating the battle, "Concord Hymn," has one of the most famous opening stanzas in American literature:

 By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world. 

Concord was the first rural artist's colony, and the first place to offer a spiritual and cultural alternative to American materialism. It was a place of high-minded conversation and simple living (Emerson and Henry David Thoreau both had vegetable gardens). Emerson, who moved to Concord in 1834, and Thoreau are most closely associated with the town, but the locale also attracted the novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, the feminist writer Margaret Fuller, the educator (and father of novelist Louisa May Alcott) Bronson Alcott, and the poet William Ellery Channing. The Transcendental Club was loosely organized in 1836 and included, at various times, Emerson, Thoreau, Fuller, Channing, Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson (a leading minister), Theodore Parker (abolitionist and minister), and others.

The Transcendentalists published a quarterly magazine, The Dial, which lasted four years and was first edited by Margaret Fuller and later by Emerson. Reform efforts engaged them as well as literature. A number of Transcendentalists were abolitionists, and some were involved in experimental utopian communities such as nearby Brook Farm (described in Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance) and Fruitlands.

Unlike many European groups, the Transcendentalists never issued a manifesto. They insisted on individual differences -- on the unique viewpoint of the individual. American Transcendental Romantics pushed radical individualism to the extreme. American writers often saw themselves as lonely explorers outside society and convention. The American hero -- like Herman Melville's Captain Ahab, or Mark Twain's Huck Finn, or Edgar Allan Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym -- typically faced risk, or even certain destruction, in the pursuit of metaphysical self-discovery. For the Romantic American writer, nothing was a given. Literary and social conventions, far from being helpful, were dangerous. There was tremendous pressure to discover an authentic literary form, content, and voice -- all at the same time. It is clear from the many masterpieces produced in the three decades before the U.S. Civil War (1861-65) that American writers rose to the challenge. 

The following can be surmised about a 'gene' from the passage except __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.

It can be dangerous to opt for genetic engineer because ___________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.

Which of the statements is the author most likely to agree with?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Essays - Capital Punishment is Our Best Solution for Unwanted Criminals

Have you been wondering where all our tax dollars are going to these days? A large amount of it is going towards maintaining murderers, rapists and thieves, and for what reason, to live the good life? The average prisoner costs the federal government one hundred and fifty dollars a day which amounts to fifty- three thousand four hundred dollars a year. Now, ask yourself this question, is it worth all this money to keep these savage criminals in jail? Do you really want these brutal criminals after release from prison roaming freely in our streets near our homes?

For all of the murderers, thieves, drug lords, rapists and any other severe law perpetrator, there must be some form of control and it must be capital punishment. Any person who kills people with no regrets or rapes innocent victims continuously, does not deserve to live in a luxurious North American penitentiary or anywhere for that matter, they deserve nothing but the death penalty. When the words ‘death penalty' or ‘capital punishment' are heard, they obviously are disturbing and uncomfortable, but so are their crimes. There is no hope for criminals with this kind of behavior and mentality. I believe that capital punishment is the key necessity.

If capital punishment was enforced for severe crimes, it would eliminate a fair amount of tax money going towards the judiciary system. If a prison were to maintain a deadly criminal sentenced for life starting at the age of thirty and living to seventy, it would cost tax payers an unbelievable amount of two million one hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars. It is hard to believe but it is true, and if that is the cost of just one criminal, imagine the astronomical amount of five hundred criminals each costing that amount of money... something must be done. Capital punishment would eliminate those figures and leave you and me a whole lot happier.

When a murderer kills a person and goes to court, he expects to get around thirty to fifty years in jail, and if he behaves well in prison, he could very well get out in half the time. It is also a fact that after the criminal has been released from prison, he will most likely perform the same acts that rendered him there in the first place. Society can't handle these brutal behaviors so therefore capital punishment will. When a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty and is executed by means of capital punishment, all the other potential murderers and rapists will get a warning. They will think twice about doing the crime after they learn of what awaits them in the end.

The passage deals with an issue that is __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Essays - Capital Punishment is Our Best Solution for Unwanted Criminals

Have you been wondering where all our tax dollars are going to these days? A large amount of it is going towards maintaining murderers, rapists and thieves, and for what reason, to live the good life? The average prisoner costs the federal government one hundred and fifty dollars a day which amounts to fifty- three thousand four hundred dollars a year. Now, ask yourself this question, is it worth all this money to keep these savage criminals in jail? Do you really want these brutal criminals after release from prison roaming freely in our streets near our homes?

For all of the murderers, thieves, drug lords, rapists and any other severe law perpetrator, there must be some form of control and it must be capital punishment. Any person who kills people with no regrets or rapes innocent victims continuously, does not deserve to live in a luxurious North American penitentiary or anywhere for that matter, they deserve nothing but the death penalty. When the words ‘death penalty' or ‘capital punishment' are heard, they obviously are disturbing and uncomfortable, but so are their crimes. There is no hope for criminals with this kind of behavior and mentality. I believe that capital punishment is the key necessity.

If capital punishment was enforced for severe crimes, it would eliminate a fair amount of tax money going towards the judiciary system. If a prison were to maintain a deadly criminal sentenced for life starting at the age of thirty and living to seventy, it would cost tax payers an unbelievable amount of two million one hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars. It is hard to believe but it is true, and if that is the cost of just one criminal, imagine the astronomical amount of five hundred criminals each costing that amount of money... something must be done. Capital punishment would eliminate those figures and leave you and me a whole lot happier.

When a murderer kills a person and goes to court, he expects to get around thirty to fifty years in jail, and if he behaves well in prison, he could very well get out in half the time. It is also a fact that after the criminal has been released from prison, he will most likely perform the same acts that rendered him there in the first place. Society can't handle these brutal behaviors so therefore capital punishment will. When a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty and is executed by means of capital punishment, all the other potential murderers and rapists will get a warning. They will think twice about doing the crime after they learn of what awaits them in the end.

The central idea of the passage can be summarized from which of the following lines of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Essays - Capital Punishment is Our Best Solution for Unwanted Criminals

Have you been wondering where all our tax dollars are going to these days? A large amount of it is going towards maintaining murderers, rapists and thieves, and for what reason, to live the good life? The average prisoner costs the federal government one hundred and fifty dollars a day which amounts to fifty- three thousand four hundred dollars a year. Now, ask yourself this question, is it worth all this money to keep these savage criminals in jail? Do you really want these brutal criminals after release from prison roaming freely in our streets near our homes?

For all of the murderers, thieves, drug lords, rapists and any other severe law perpetrator, there must be some form of control and it must be capital punishment. Any person who kills people with no regrets or rapes innocent victims continuously, does not deserve to live in a luxurious North American penitentiary or anywhere for that matter, they deserve nothing but the death penalty. When the words ‘death penalty' or ‘capital punishment' are heard, they obviously are disturbing and uncomfortable, but so are their crimes. There is no hope for criminals with this kind of behavior and mentality. I believe that capital punishment is the key necessity.

If capital punishment was enforced for severe crimes, it would eliminate a fair amount of tax money going towards the judiciary system. If a prison were to maintain a deadly criminal sentenced for life starting at the age of thirty and living to seventy, it would cost tax payers an unbelievable amount of two million one hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars. It is hard to believe but it is true, and if that is the cost of just one criminal, imagine the astronomical amount of five hundred criminals each costing that amount of money... something must be done. Capital punishment would eliminate those figures and leave you and me a whole lot happier.

When a murderer kills a person and goes to court, he expects to get around thirty to fifty years in jail, and if he behaves well in prison, he could very well get out in half the time. It is also a fact that after the criminal has been released from prison, he will most likely perform the same acts that rendered him there in the first place. Society can't handle these brutal behaviors so therefore capital punishment will. When a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty and is executed by means of capital punishment, all the other potential murderers and rapists will get a warning. They will think twice about doing the crime after they learn of what awaits them in the end.

The organization of the passage can be best described as _____________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Essays - Capital Punishment is Our Best Solution for Unwanted Criminals

Have you been wondering where all our tax dollars are going to these days? A large amount of it is going towards maintaining murderers, rapists and thieves, and for what reason, to live the good life? The average prisoner costs the federal government one hundred and fifty dollars a day which amounts to fifty- three thousand four hundred dollars a year. Now, ask yourself this question, is it worth all this money to keep these savage criminals in jail? Do you really want these brutal criminals after release from prison roaming freely in our streets near our homes?

For all of the murderers, thieves, drug lords, rapists and any other severe law perpetrator, there must be some form of control and it must be capital punishment. Any person who kills people with no regrets or rapes innocent victims continuously, does not deserve to live in a luxurious North American penitentiary or anywhere for that matter, they deserve nothing but the death penalty. When the words ‘death penalty' or ‘capital punishment' are heard, they obviously are disturbing and uncomfortable, but so are their crimes. There is no hope for criminals with this kind of behavior and mentality. I believe that capital punishment is the key necessity.

If capital punishment was enforced for severe crimes, it would eliminate a fair amount of tax money going towards the judiciary system. If a prison were to maintain a deadly criminal sentenced for life starting at the age of thirty and living to seventy, it would cost tax payers an unbelievable amount of two million one hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars. It is hard to believe but it is true, and if that is the cost of just one criminal, imagine the astronomical amount of five hundred criminals each costing that amount of money... something must be done. Capital punishment would eliminate those figures and leave you and me a whole lot happier.

When a murderer kills a person and goes to court, he expects to get around thirty to fifty years in jail, and if he behaves well in prison, he could very well get out in half the time. It is also a fact that after the criminal has been released from prison, he will most likely perform the same acts that rendered him there in the first place. Society can't handle these brutal behaviors so therefore capital punishment will. When a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty and is executed by means of capital punishment, all the other potential murderers and rapists will get a warning. They will think twice about doing the crime after they learn of what awaits them in the end.

The process of evolution can be equated with _______________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.

One can most probably attribute the following adjectives to the genetically altered child excluding ______________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.

Which of the following statements about evolution can be extracted from the passage?
I. Genetic Engineering is looked upon with trepidation because of its implied or palpable encumbrance to the process of evolution.
II. Evolution is an ever continuing process in a living organism.
III. Genetic Engineering is sure to convert evolution into an obsolete process.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.

It can be inferred from the passage that ________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.

The organization of the passage can be best described as __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.

The tone of the passage is _________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Essays - Capital Punishment is Our Best Solution for Unwanted Criminals

Have you been wondering where all our tax dollars are going to these days? A large amount of it is going towards maintaining murderers, rapists and thieves, and for what reason, to live the good life? The average prisoner costs the federal government one hundred and fifty dollars a day which amounts to fifty- three thousand four hundred dollars a year. Now, ask yourself this question, is it worth all this money to keep these savage criminals in jail? Do you really want these brutal criminals after release from prison roaming freely in our streets near our homes?

For all of the murderers, thieves, drug lords, rapists and any other severe law perpetrator, there must be some form of control and it must be capital punishment. Any person who kills people with no regrets or rapes innocent victims continuously, does not deserve to live in a luxurious North American penitentiary or anywhere for that matter, they deserve nothing but the death penalty. When the words ‘death penalty' or ‘capital punishment' are heard, they obviously are disturbing and uncomfortable, but so are their crimes. There is no hope for criminals with this kind of behavior and mentality. I believe that capital punishment is the key necessity.

If capital punishment was enforced for severe crimes, it would eliminate a fair amount of tax money going towards the judiciary system. If a prison were to maintain a deadly criminal sentenced for life starting at the age of thirty and living to seventy, it would cost tax payers an unbelievable amount of two million one hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars. It is hard to believe but it is true, and if that is the cost of just one criminal, imagine the astronomical amount of five hundred criminals each costing that amount of money... something must be done. Capital punishment would eliminate those figures and leave you and me a whole lot happier.

When a murderer kills a person and goes to court, he expects to get around thirty to fifty years in jail, and if he behaves well in prison, he could very well get out in half the time. It is also a fact that after the criminal has been released from prison, he will most likely perform the same acts that rendered him there in the first place. Society can't handle these brutal behaviors so therefore capital punishment will. When a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty and is executed by means of capital punishment, all the other potential murderers and rapists will get a warning. They will think twice about doing the crime after they learn of what awaits them in the end.

Genetic Engineering can have all the following functions except ____________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Now that we have decoded the human genome, why don't we improve it?
The question is at present theoretical but could well emerge as the hardest of all bioethical issues. Biologists routinely alter the genes of mice, with methods that are not yet acceptable for making inheritable changes in people, but one day genetic engineers may figure out how to apply safe patches to the human biological software.
Everyone would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and gifted. But people vary widely in all these qualities, depending on their parents' genes, and the pure luck of the draw at conception when each child gets allotted a random selection of half the parental gene pool.
Most human genes exist in several different versions in the population: some of them are great to have, some so-so and some downright deleterious.
This month the Icelandic company Decode Genetics found three quite common versions of a gene called BMP-2, each of which considerably increases its owner's risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.
Suppose it was possible to delete any bad version of BMP-2, and of all other human genes, in a human embryo, and to replace them with good versions, without any risk to health. Would that be the right thing to do?
Parents who made such a choice would know they had given their child the best possible start in life. However expensive the procedure, it would be cheap in the long run if it saved a lifetime of medical bills, and therefore could be made available to all. Life's most serious unfairness, the difference in genetic endowment, would be erased from birth.
"One day, people may view sex as essentially recreational, and conception as something best done in the laboratory," Dr. Gregory Stock wrote recently in "Redesigning Humans.” Parents may start to believe it is "reckless and primitive to conceive a child without prior genetic testing."
Yet there are weighty arguments for not making inheritable changes to the human genome.
On the practical side, many genes have more than one effect, and swapping out the bad version of a gene can have unpredictable complications. The new gene, for example, may interact badly with the person's other genes.
But if the elimination of disease-causing variants of genes should prove successful, there might be no holding the line against parents who wanted to enhance strength or intelligence as well.
Upgrading the imperfect human material is all very well, but handling the transition between the super people and the ordinary variety promises to be awkward. Social stresses may emerge, especially if the technology does not trickle down quickly and smoothly.
Soup up those genes for I.Q.? Altering the genes that shape human behavior is not to be 0undertaken lightly. Human nature is a subtle blend of contrary qualities, the only survivor of evolution's many disastrous experiments. What could justify the risk of messing with such a delicate brew? Can't we be happy as we are, just as nature has shaped us?
"The human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement,' " the President's Council on Bioethics wrote in a report last month on the dangers of enhancing the body's natural abilities.
As the products of evolution, people may seem churlish if they challenge evolution's wisdom. But of course, evolution has none. It is a blind process that depends on constant error to create occasional lucky accidents.
By culling the unfortunate owners of bad genes, evolution keeps animals healthy and vigorous until the age of reproduction, and a bit beyond for species that provide parental care.
But evolution's rigor at favoring good genes that act early in life is mirrored by a weakness in screening out bad genes that act after the age of reproduction. Because of this weakness, evolution has failed to eliminate the bone-fracturing variants of BMP-2, and the bad, late-acting versions of many other genes in the human genome. This is the very reason that we age and die.
If evolution cannot help us after a certain age, why should we not help ourselves? Should not everyone have a right to the best versions of the genes in our collective genetic heritage, or at least to be born free of the worse ones?
And yet, if we reduce genetic differences, we risk turning the human population into one giant clone, tedious to meet with and bereft of the variation needed to respond to changing environments. The pursuit of perfection, if carried to extremes, is sure recipe for extinction.