Reading Comprehension

An animal that is pleased to eat and frisk in quiet away from the public glare is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The cat was made for love and warmth and softness. These bring out all her best qualities. She is nearest perfection sleeping in a fluffy coil by the fire, secure of the same warmth in one human heart. We must let sleeping dogs lie, but we can bury our face in a sleeping cat and she stirs only to purr. No waking thoughts were ever more innocent. She is as near as heaven as we can get on earth, blissful, quiet, content. She alone of animals knows how to luxuriate in perfect rest. As she lies in a bath of firelight, listening to the flames, breathing her low contented hum, she does not have to consider getting out and drying herself, but lays her mind to rock on a stream of gentle truthfulness. And when this beautiful petted cat awakes with a wide yawn, and stretches herself bit by bit as if to bring her wandering spirit back by some elaborate conjuror’s trick, she wakes to the life for which she is perfectly fitted. The cat needs human affection. It is not like a rabbit, pleased to eat and frisk in lonely nature and the farther from human notice the better, nor like a sparrow or a mouse, attracted to the haunts of man by crumbs. The wild domestic cat that dodges round corners or bolts up trees, whose claw is against every man and whom every dog chases, is not the natural un-reclaimed cat, but a poor outcast from its natural heritage. Deprived of its security in man’s love the cat becomes almost a nerve-shattered maniac; and yet a little affection will turn it into the fluffy darling.
Not instinct, but experience, makes animals afraid. The young thrush comes within a yard as we sit chatting on the garden seat. Old birds trust us less, except in a land of Buddha. The scared cat is circumstantial evidence of our brutality. Even cats and dogs have no natural antipathy. They get the reputation for it because their habits in the streets are complementary; the cat runs and the dog chases. Not once in a thousand dogs would know what to do with the cat if he caught her. When a cat strikes an attitude in his path, the dog draws round her a polite circle. In a state of nature they would live in perfect amity. A kitten and a puppy greet each other with unguarded trust. Dogs usually become catters only through thoughtlessness or the sporting instinct of their owners. Though always ready to chase anything that runs, they have much kindlier nature than men. A retriever puppy will watch a rabbit hop leisurely across the lawn within ten yards of him, who never saw one dart along the road without giving a chase. An Irish terrier was seen the other day playing with a mouse, and, till the little creature bit his too inquisitive nose, no instinct prompted him to kill it. The same terrier chased the flying beech leaves as if he would catch Autumn before he stopped. If dogs and cats are born with an ultimate hunting instinct, as many blue-eyed babies will ultimately have brown eyes, they certainly start life innocent.
Although cats do not learn tricks invented by their frivolous owners, they adapt themselves very quickly to strange circumstances. Cats imported into Jamaica cleared the country of vermin so effectively that they soon left nothing to eat but insects, and on these, an occasional appetizer in their natural diet, they now live. (The Cat by Katherine M. Wilson)

What, according to the passage, could turn a nerve-shattering maniac into a fluffy darling?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The cat was made for love and warmth and softness. These bring out all her best qualities. She is nearest perfection sleeping in a fluffy coil by the fire, secure of the same warmth in one human heart. We must let sleeping dogs lie, but we can bury our face in a sleeping cat and she stirs only to purr. No waking thoughts were ever more innocent. She is as near as heaven as we can get on earth, blissful, quiet, content. She alone of animals knows how to luxuriate in perfect rest. As she lies in a bath of firelight, listening to the flames, breathing her low contented hum, she does not have to consider getting out and drying herself, but lays her mind to rock on a stream of gentle truthfulness. And when this beautiful petted cat awakes with a wide yawn, and stretches herself bit by bit as if to bring her wandering spirit back by some elaborate conjuror’s trick, she wakes to the life for which she is perfectly fitted. The cat needs human affection. It is not like a rabbit, pleased to eat and frisk in lonely nature and the farther from human notice the better, nor like a sparrow or a mouse, attracted to the haunts of man by crumbs. The wild domestic cat that dodges round corners or bolts up trees, whose claw is against every man and whom every dog chases, is not the natural un-reclaimed cat, but a poor outcast from its natural heritage. Deprived of its security in man’s love the cat becomes almost a nerve-shattered maniac; and yet a little affection will turn it into the fluffy darling.
Not instinct, but experience, makes animals afraid. The young thrush comes within a yard as we sit chatting on the garden seat. Old birds trust us less, except in a land of Buddha. The scared cat is circumstantial evidence of our brutality. Even cats and dogs have no natural antipathy. They get the reputation for it because their habits in the streets are complementary; the cat runs and the dog chases. Not once in a thousand dogs would know what to do with the cat if he caught her. When a cat strikes an attitude in his path, the dog draws round her a polite circle. In a state of nature they would live in perfect amity. A kitten and a puppy greet each other with unguarded trust. Dogs usually become catters only through thoughtlessness or the sporting instinct of their owners. Though always ready to chase anything that runs, they have much kindlier nature than men. A retriever puppy will watch a rabbit hop leisurely across the lawn within ten yards of him, who never saw one dart along the road without giving a chase. An Irish terrier was seen the other day playing with a mouse, and, till the little creature bit his too inquisitive nose, no instinct prompted him to kill it. The same terrier chased the flying beech leaves as if he would catch Autumn before he stopped. If dogs and cats are born with an ultimate hunting instinct, as many blue-eyed babies will ultimately have brown eyes, they certainly start life innocent.
Although cats do not learn tricks invented by their frivolous owners, they adapt themselves very quickly to strange circumstances. Cats imported into Jamaica cleared the country of vermin so effectively that they soon left nothing to eat but insects, and on these, an occasional appetizer in their natural diet, they now live. (The Cat by Katherine M. Wilson)

What lends support to the author's assertion in the passage that dogs are not the natural enemies of cats?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The cat was made for love and warmth and softness. These bring out all her best qualities. She is nearest perfection sleeping in a fluffy coil by the fire, secure of the same warmth in one human heart. We must let sleeping dogs lie, but we can bury our face in a sleeping cat and she stirs only to purr. No waking thoughts were ever more innocent. She is as near as heaven as we can get on earth, blissful, quiet, content. She alone of animals knows how to luxuriate in perfect rest. As she lies in a bath of firelight, listening to the flames, breathing her low contented hum, she does not have to consider getting out and drying herself, but lays her mind to rock on a stream of gentle truthfulness. And when this beautiful petted cat awakes with a wide yawn, and stretches herself bit by bit as if to bring her wandering spirit back by some elaborate conjuror’s trick, she wakes to the life for which she is perfectly fitted. The cat needs human affection. It is not like a rabbit, pleased to eat and frisk in lonely nature and the farther from human notice the better, nor like a sparrow or a mouse, attracted to the haunts of man by crumbs. The wild domestic cat that dodges round corners or bolts up trees, whose claw is against every man and whom every dog chases, is not the natural un-reclaimed cat, but a poor outcast from its natural heritage. Deprived of its security in man’s love the cat becomes almost a nerve-shattered maniac; and yet a little affection will turn it into the fluffy darling.
Not instinct, but experience, makes animals afraid. The young thrush comes within a yard as we sit chatting on the garden seat. Old birds trust us less, except in a land of Buddha. The scared cat is circumstantial evidence of our brutality. Even cats and dogs have no natural antipathy. They get the reputation for it because their habits in the streets are complementary; the cat runs and the dog chases. Not once in a thousand dogs would know what to do with the cat if he caught her. When a cat strikes an attitude in his path, the dog draws round her a polite circle. In a state of nature they would live in perfect amity. A kitten and a puppy greet each other with unguarded trust. Dogs usually become catters only through thoughtlessness or the sporting instinct of their owners. Though always ready to chase anything that runs, they have much kindlier nature than men. A retriever puppy will watch a rabbit hop leisurely across the lawn within ten yards of him, who never saw one dart along the road without giving a chase. An Irish terrier was seen the other day playing with a mouse, and, till the little creature bit his too inquisitive nose, no instinct prompted him to kill it. The same terrier chased the flying beech leaves as if he would catch Autumn before he stopped. If dogs and cats are born with an ultimate hunting instinct, as many blue-eyed babies will ultimately have brown eyes, they certainly start life innocent.
Although cats do not learn tricks invented by their frivolous owners, they adapt themselves very quickly to strange circumstances. Cats imported into Jamaica cleared the country of vermin so effectively that they soon left nothing to eat but insects, and on these, an occasional appetizer in their natural diet, they now live. (The Cat by Katherine M. Wilson)

Why does the author say that the scared cat is circumstantial evidence of our brutality?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The cat was made for love and warmth and softness. These bring out all her best qualities. She is nearest perfection sleeping in a fluffy coil by the fire, secure of the same warmth in one human heart. We must let sleeping dogs lie, but we can bury our face in a sleeping cat and she stirs only to purr. No waking thoughts were ever more innocent. She is as near as heaven as we can get on earth, blissful, quiet, content. She alone of animals knows how to luxuriate in perfect rest. As she lies in a bath of firelight, listening to the flames, breathing her low contented hum, she does not have to consider getting out and drying herself, but lays her mind to rock on a stream of gentle truthfulness. And when this beautiful petted cat awakes with a wide yawn, and stretches herself bit by bit as if to bring her wandering spirit back by some elaborate conjuror’s trick, she wakes to the life for which she is perfectly fitted. The cat needs human affection. It is not like a rabbit, pleased to eat and frisk in lonely nature and the farther from human notice the better, nor like a sparrow or a mouse, attracted to the haunts of man by crumbs. The wild domestic cat that dodges round corners or bolts up trees, whose claw is against every man and whom every dog chases, is not the natural un-reclaimed cat, but a poor outcast from its natural heritage. Deprived of its security in man’s love the cat becomes almost a nerve-shattered maniac; and yet a little affection will turn it into the fluffy darling.
Not instinct, but experience, makes animals afraid. The young thrush comes within a yard as we sit chatting on the garden seat. Old birds trust us less, except in a land of Buddha. The scared cat is circumstantial evidence of our brutality. Even cats and dogs have no natural antipathy. They get the reputation for it because their habits in the streets are complementary; the cat runs and the dog chases. Not once in a thousand dogs would know what to do with the cat if he caught her. When a cat strikes an attitude in his path, the dog draws round her a polite circle. In a state of nature they would live in perfect amity. A kitten and a puppy greet each other with unguarded trust. Dogs usually become catters only through thoughtlessness or the sporting instinct of their owners. Though always ready to chase anything that runs, they have much kindlier nature than men. A retriever puppy will watch a rabbit hop leisurely across the lawn within ten yards of him, who never saw one dart along the road without giving a chase. An Irish terrier was seen the other day playing with a mouse, and, till the little creature bit his too inquisitive nose, no instinct prompted him to kill it. The same terrier chased the flying beech leaves as if he would catch Autumn before he stopped. If dogs and cats are born with an ultimate hunting instinct, as many blue-eyed babies will ultimately have brown eyes, they certainly start life innocent.
Although cats do not learn tricks invented by their frivolous owners, they adapt themselves very quickly to strange circumstances. Cats imported into Jamaica cleared the country of vermin so effectively that they soon left nothing to eat but insects, and on these, an occasional appetizer in their natural diet, they now live. (The Cat by Katherine M. Wilson)

Look at the word that in paragraph 1. The word that in the passage refers to

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

What does the author of the passage think about the institution of Electoral College?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Based on the information given in the passage, what can be inferred?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country's democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state's electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its winner-take-all nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today's political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people's voices that matter most.

The word ‘anachronistic’ in the passage is closest in meaning to

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Which of the following details best supports the main idea of the passage?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

What cannot be inferred from the given passage?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a problem with the Electoral College system?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country's democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state's electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its winner-take-all nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today's political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country's federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people's voices that matter most.

According to the passage, which one of the following necessitated the institution of Electoral College?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So, what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President. Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country's democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state's electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its winner-take-all' nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country's federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people's voices that matter most.

According to the passage, what is the very purpose of holding an election?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

The author of the passage implies that the institution of Electoral College

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Directions: Which of the following statements is NOT mentioned in the passage as evidence of Carson's influence on the regulation of pesticides?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

THE FIRST ENVIRONMENTALIST: RACHEL CARSON

Rachel Louise Carson received her degrees in marine biology from the Pennsylvania College for Women and in zoology from the Johns Hopkins University. Her true calling turned out to be much broader in range than the academic study of wildlife, however. As Carson’s career as a scientific writer progressed, she became interested in the effects of artificial chemicals on the natural environment. Through her published research, she was the first to direct public attention to the environmental damage caused by the indiscriminate use of pesticides in agriculture. She is thus regarded as the public figure who launched the environmentalist movement.

Upon enrolling in college, Carson had initially intended to major in English and become a journalist or novelist. Her attentiveness to presentation allowed her to convey even rather dry facts in an evocative prose style that held the attention of the general reader. Wedded to her extensive academic training in biology, Carson’s talent for expressive writing positioned her ideally to bring scientific findings about ecology to a mass audience. She published a famous trilogy about the delicate and complex ecology of the sea, beginning with Under the Sea-Wind. That first volume took a large-scale approach, describing the living systems of the ocean in everyday, easily understood terms. Under the Sea-Wind was only a moderate commercial success, but it, along with Carson’s writings for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, set the stage for her second volume, published ten years after the first. The Sea Around Us made Rachel Carson a household name. It became not only a bestseller but also a National Book Award winner. In it, Carson examined more explicitly than before the effects of human action on the creatures of the ocean. The last book in the trilogy was The Edge of the Sea, in which Carson trained her writerly and scientific gaze on the shoreline of the East Coast to examine the endangered organisms that populated it.

These books established Carson as a public figure who advocated respect for the environment, but the work that would be her most lasting legacy was yet to come. She began to examine data on the effects of agricultural pesticides, spurred in part by a letter from two friends who owned a farm in Massachusetts and expressed concern that sprayed pesticides were causing harm to local wildlife. Carson’s research convinced her that high exposure to pesticides such as DDT threatened not only beneficial insects and birds but also people. She put her conclusions in a landmark fourth scientific volume, Silent Spring. In the famous image that gave the book its title, Carson hypothesized about an ecosystem in which the calling of birds had been silenced by poison in soil and groundwater.

Carson alleged that the regulations governing use of these chemicals were inadequate, though her positions were not as extreme as they are sometimes now characterized. She did not support the outright banning of pesticides. Rather, she objected to “indiscriminate” use, which is to say, use without any thought for caution and moderation. Eventually, Carson’s views were taken seriously at the highest levels of government. President John F. Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee solicited her advice on how to improve rules about pesticide use. She also testified before Congress. Through her influence, she assisted in bringing about far stricter controls on toxic chemicals such as DDT, which deteriorates slowly and thus remains in soil and groundwater for very long periods of time.