From the earliest times, the complications inherent in deciphering the movements of planets in the night sky must have seemed a curse to baffled astronomers. In the long run, though, they proved a blessing to the development of cosmology, the study of the physical universe. Had the celestial motions been simple, it might have been possible to explain them solely in terms of the simple, poetic tales that had characterized the early cosmologies. Instead, these motions proved to be so intricate and subtle that astronomers could not predict them accurately without eventually coming to terms with the physical reality of how and where the Sun, Moon, and planets actually move in real, three-dimensional space.
The passage indicates that ancient astronomers were 'baffled' because:
- A. Their observations disproved the poetic tales of early cosmologies
- B. They lacked the mathematical sophistication needed to calculate astronomical distances
- C. Their theories of planetary movements were more complicated than the movements themselves
- D. They could not reliably predict observable celestial phenomena
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
Ancient astronomers were 'baffled' primarily because they struggled to reliably predict observable celestial phenomena. This unpredictability challenged their understanding and led to confusion in their astronomical models. Option A is incorrect as it implies a conflict with poetic tales, which was not the primary concern of astronomers. Option B misrepresents the issue; while mathematical sophistication was limited, the core problem was not solely about calculations. Option C inaccurately suggests that their theories were overly complex; rather, the issue lay in their inability to accurately forecast celestial events, which is the essence of their bafflement.
Ancient astronomers were 'baffled' primarily because they struggled to reliably predict observable celestial phenomena. This unpredictability challenged their understanding and led to confusion in their astronomical models. Option A is incorrect as it implies a conflict with poetic tales, which was not the primary concern of astronomers. Option B misrepresents the issue; while mathematical sophistication was limited, the core problem was not solely about calculations. Option C inaccurately suggests that their theories were overly complex; rather, the issue lay in their inability to accurately forecast celestial events, which is the essence of their bafflement.
Other Related Questions
In context, where would the following sentence best be placed? How long did it take sauropods to grow to full adult size?
- A. After sentence 3
- B. After sentence 8
- C. After sentence 9
- D. After sentence 12
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Placing the question "How long did it take sauropods to grow to full adult size?" after sentence 9 is most effective as it follows a discussion about sauropod growth patterns, providing a logical transition into the specifics of their growth duration. Option A, after sentence 3, is too early as it lacks the necessary context about sauropod growth. Option B, after sentence 8, is close but doesn't fully prepare the reader for the specific inquiry about growth duration. Option D, after sentence 12, is too late, as it disrupts the flow by introducing a new question after concluding details about sauropods.
Placing the question "How long did it take sauropods to grow to full adult size?" after sentence 9 is most effective as it follows a discussion about sauropod growth patterns, providing a logical transition into the specifics of their growth duration. Option A, after sentence 3, is too early as it lacks the necessary context about sauropod growth. Option B, after sentence 8, is close but doesn't fully prepare the reader for the specific inquiry about growth duration. Option D, after sentence 12, is too late, as it disrupts the flow by introducing a new question after concluding details about sauropods.
Which is the best way to revise and combine sentences 3 and 4 (reproduced below)? Lorca was the oldest son of a wealthy landowner. He studied literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.
- A. Lorca was the oldest son of a wealthy landowner, studied literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.
- B. The oldest son of a wealthy landowner, Lorca studied literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.
- C. Lorca, the oldest son of a wealthy landowner, studying literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.
- D. The oldest son of a wealthy landowner who studied literature and law at the University of Granada, Lorca then turning to writing full-time.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Option B effectively combines the two sentences by placing the subject, Lorca, at the beginning and clearly linking his identity to his actions. This structure maintains clarity and coherence, allowing readers to easily follow the progression of ideas. Option A lacks a conjunction, resulting in a sentence fragment that does not convey a complete thought. Option C incorrectly uses "studying," which creates a grammatical error by failing to connect the clauses properly. Option D introduces unnecessary complexity with "who studied," and the phrase "Lorca then turning" is awkward and grammatically incorrect. Thus, option B stands out as the most coherent and grammatically sound choice.
Option B effectively combines the two sentences by placing the subject, Lorca, at the beginning and clearly linking his identity to his actions. This structure maintains clarity and coherence, allowing readers to easily follow the progression of ideas. Option A lacks a conjunction, resulting in a sentence fragment that does not convey a complete thought. Option C incorrectly uses "studying," which creates a grammatical error by failing to connect the clauses properly. Option D introduces unnecessary complexity with "who studied," and the phrase "Lorca then turning" is awkward and grammatically incorrect. Thus, option B stands out as the most coherent and grammatically sound choice.
The writer is considering adding the following sentence to the end of the fourth paragraph: 'Surprisingly, according to The Economist, there were 1.6 million commercial farms in Brazil in 2010.' Should the writer make this addition here?
- A. Yes, because it emphasizes the paragraph's focus on the economic power of large farms.
- B. Yes, because it uses concrete data to provide context about local farms and commercial farms.
- C. No, because it is unrelated to the economic challenges small farms may face.
- D. No, because it fails to show a clear connection to the paragraph's focus on supporting local farms.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Adding the sentence enhances the paragraph by providing concrete data, which helps contextualize the discussion about local and commercial farms. It bridges the gap between the economic landscape and the realities faced by different types of farms, enriching the reader's understanding. Option A misinterprets the focus; while large farms are mentioned, the emphasis is on the economic challenges faced by smaller farms. Option C incorrectly suggests that the data is unrelated; understanding the number of commercial farms is essential to discussing the economic landscape. Option D overlooks that the data can indeed support a broader discussion about local farms by contrasting them with commercial operations.
Adding the sentence enhances the paragraph by providing concrete data, which helps contextualize the discussion about local and commercial farms. It bridges the gap between the economic landscape and the realities faced by different types of farms, enriching the reader's understanding. Option A misinterprets the focus; while large farms are mentioned, the emphasis is on the economic challenges faced by smaller farms. Option C incorrectly suggests that the data is unrelated; understanding the number of commercial farms is essential to discussing the economic landscape. Option D overlooks that the data can indeed support a broader discussion about local farms by contrasting them with commercial operations.
In context, the metaphor in the third sentence ('it was... years') chiefly serves to:
- A. Call attention to the age of the United States as a nation
- B. Question the literary value of the writings by Lewis and Clark
- C. Trivialize the accomplishments of the Lewis and Clark expedition
- D. Place the Lewis and Clark expedition into a broad context
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
The metaphor in the third sentence effectively places the Lewis and Clark expedition within a broader historical and cultural context, emphasizing its significance in relation to the age of the nation and its development. Option A, while related to the age of the United States, does not capture the metaphor's broader implications. Option B misinterprets the metaphor, as it does not question literary value but rather highlights historical importance. Option C inaccurately suggests that the metaphor diminishes the expedition’s achievements, whereas it actually elevates their significance by situating them within a larger narrative.
The metaphor in the third sentence effectively places the Lewis and Clark expedition within a broader historical and cultural context, emphasizing its significance in relation to the age of the nation and its development. Option A, while related to the age of the United States, does not capture the metaphor's broader implications. Option B misinterprets the metaphor, as it does not question literary value but rather highlights historical importance. Option C inaccurately suggests that the metaphor diminishes the expedition’s achievements, whereas it actually elevates their significance by situating them within a larger narrative.