TABE Reading Practice Test 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. According to the author, what is most responsible for influencing our perception of a comparison between species?
- The behavior of the organisms in their natural environment
- The organizational scheme imposed on the living world by researchers and philosophers (Correct answer)
- The style of language used by scientists in presenting their research
- The sophistication of the communication between organisms
- The magnitude of hierarchical distance between a species and Homo sapiens
Correct answer: The organizational scheme imposed on the living world by researchers and philosophers
The passage explicitly states in lines 3-6 that 'The classifications (also known as taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analogical.' This indicates that the way living creatures are categorized by researchers and philosophers directly dictates how we perceive similarities and differences between species.
Question 2: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. Which of the following is NOT possible within an Aristotelian classification scheme?
- Two species that are alike in having sensory souls but differ in that one lacks a rational soul
- Two species that are alike in having vegetative souls but differ in that only one has a sensory soul
- A species having a vegetative soul while lacking sensory and rational souls
- A species having vegetative and rational souls while lacking a sensory soul (Correct answer)
- A species having vegetative and sensory souls while lacking a rational soul
Correct answer: A species having vegetative and rational souls while lacking a sensory soul
The Aristotelian classification scheme describes a nested hierarchy: all living creatures have a vegetative soul, some of these also have a sensory soul, and one species (humans) also has a rational soul. This means possessing a rational soul implies possessing a sensory soul, which in turn implies possessing a vegetative soul. Therefore, a species cannot have a rational soul without also having a sensory soul, making option D impossible.
Question 3: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. Which of the following comparisons would be "legitimate" for all living organisms according to the Aristotelian scheme described in paragraph two? I. Comparisons based on the vegetative soul II. Comparisons based on the sensory soul III. Comparisons based on the rational soul
- I only (Correct answer)
- II only
- III only
- II and III only
- I, II, and III
Correct answer: I only
According to the Aristotelian scheme in paragraph two, 'All living creatures possess a vegetative soul' (lines 19-20). The passage then states that 'reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate' (lines 27-29). Comparisons based on sensory souls are legitimate only for 'other animals,' not all living organisms (as plants lack sensory souls), and rational soul comparisons are 'merely analogical' for any other species. Thus, only comparisons based on the vegetative soul are legitimate for all living organisms.
Question 4: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. If the author had wished to explain why "most" people (line 40) feel the way they do, the explanation would have probably focused on the
- reality of distinct biological species
- most recent advances in biological research
- behavioral similarities between Homo sapiens and other species
- role of language in the development of technology
- lack of objectivity in the classification of Homo sapiens (Correct answer)
Correct answer: lack of objectivity in the classification of Homo sapiens
The author uses phrases like 'For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique' and questions why certain animal behaviors are not considered 'genuine language' or 'tool use.' The author's skepticism ('I have never been able to understand why,' 'I, however, fail to see what difference it makes') suggests that this human insistence on unique status stems from a subjective bias rather than objective scientific criteria. Therefore, the explanation would likely focus on the lack of objectivity in how humans classify themselves.
Question 5: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. The author uses the words "For some reason" in lines 40-41 to express
- rage
- disapproval (Correct answer)
- despair
- sympathy
- uncertainty
Correct answer: disapproval
The author uses 'For some reason' (lines 40-41, 46) to introduce the human tendency to insist on the 'uniquely unique' status of Homo sapiens, particularly regarding language and tool use. The author then explicitly states, 'I have never been able to understand why' and 'I, however, fail to see what difference it makes.' This phrasing conveys the author's skepticism and disagreement with this human-centric bias, indicating disapproval of the arbitrary distinctions made.
Question 6: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. Which best summarizes the idea of "uniquely unique" (line 42)?
- We are unique in the same way that all other species are unique.
- We are defined by attributes that we alone possess and that are qualitatively different from those of other species. (Correct answer)
- We are, by virtue of our elevated rank, insulated from many of the problems of survival faced by less sophisticated species.
- Our awareness of our uniqueness defines us as a rational species.
- Our apparently unique status is an unintended by-product of classification systems.
Correct answer: We are defined by attributes that we alone possess and that are qualitatively different from those of other species.
The passage explains 'uniquely unique' as the human desire to be 'insulated from all other species with respect to how we explain certain qualities' (lines 43-45). This is exemplified by the insistence that bee dances are not 'genuine language' and other species do not 'use tools,' despite their complexity. This implies a belief that human attributes are fundamentally distinct and superior, setting humans apart qualitatively from all other species, which aligns with option B.
Question 7: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. In line 44, "insulated from" means
- warmed by
- covered with
- barred from
- segregated from (Correct answer)
- protected from
Correct answer: segregated from
In line 44, the passage states, "It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to how we explain certain qualities." This implies a desire to keep humans separate or distinct from other species when discussing specific attributes. "Segregated from" means to set apart or separate from, which accurately reflects the intention of preventing shared explanations or comparisons.
Question 8: The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years. The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification. The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans. According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor. Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique. In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy. Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language. I have never been 50 able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do. In the third paragraph, the author criticizes those who believe that
- the similarities between Homo sapiens and other species are more significant than their differences
- the differences between Homo sapiens and other animals are those of degree, not kind
- Homo sapiens and animals belong to separate and distinct divisions of the living (Correct answer)
- Homo sapiens and animals have the ability to control their environment
- Homo sapiens and other organisms can be arranged in Aristotelian nested groups
Correct answer: Homo sapiens and animals belong to separate and distinct divisions of the living
The third paragraph discusses how many people want humans to be "uniquely unique" and "insulated from all other species" regarding qualities like language and tool use. The author then questions *why* this desire for absolute separation is so important, implying a criticism of the belief that humans are fundamentally distinct from animals. Therefore, the author criticizes the belief that Homo sapiens and animals belong to separate and distinct divisions of the living world.
Question 9: Which word has a vowel sound that is long?
- Grade (Correct answer)
- Slack
- Flaw
- Bread
Correct answer: Grade
A long vowel sound is typically pronounced like the name of the letter itself. In the word "Grade," the 'a' vowel makes the long 'a' sound, similar to "ay." In contrast, "Slack" has a short 'a' sound, "Flaw" has an 'aw' sound, and "Bread" has a short 'e' sound.
Question 10: Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. Read the cited passage in the article. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. What exactly are bogs, according to the context of the article?
- Forests
- Swamps (Correct answer)
- Deserts
- Beaches
Correct answer: Swamps
The passage states, "Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by." This sentence provides a direct contextual clue for the meaning of "bogs." A swamp is a type of wetland characterized by damp, marshy conditions, making it the closest and most appropriate definition among the given choices.
Question 11: Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. What is the article's main objective?
- To inspire readers to take action in order to save the threatened Venus flytrap.
- To persuade people to travel to the Carolinas in order to find the Venus flytrap.
- To educate readers about the various plant species that can be found in the United States.
- To educate readers about the Venus flytrap and how it differs from other types of plants. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: To educate readers about the Venus flytrap and how it differs from other types of plants.
The article's primary focus is on describing the Venus flytrap, detailing its unique characteristics such as being a carnivore, having a 'mouth,' and its specific hunting mechanism. It consistently highlights how these features differentiate it from other plants. Therefore, the main objective is to educate readers about this distinct plant.
Question 12: Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. What is one of the Venus flytrap's primary characteristics that makes it rare, according to the article?
- It needs food to produce energy.
- It is carnivorous. (Correct answer)
- It lives in swamps and bogs.
- It has a brain.
Correct answer: It is carnivorous.
Paragraph 2 explicitly states, "The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants." This characteristic of consuming insects, rather than relying solely on the sun like most plants, is presented as a key distinguishing and rare feature of the Venus flytrap within the plant kingdom.
Question 13: Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. The "mouth" around the plant's prey snaps shut when pressure is given to these hairs. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. Read the passage from the article. The "mouth" around the plant's prey snaps shut when pressure is given to these hairs. What does the word "prey" most nearly mean in this sentence?
- A message to a supernatural being.
- The mouth of the Venus flytrap.
- The way it hunts.
- The food it eats. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The food it eats.
In the context of the sentence, "The 'mouth' around the plant's prey snaps shut when pressure is given to these hairs," and given that the article describes the Venus flytrap as a carnivore that "consumes flies and other insects," 'prey' refers to the animals it hunts and eats. Therefore, it means the food it consumes.
Question 14: "Flytraps are from Venus. (1) When you play outside, you can notice a lot of plants. Flowers, trees, and even grass are all considered to be plants. These are the kinds of things that come to mind when we think of plants. While plants eat from the sun, animals have mouths that allow them to consume food. But can you picture how a plant might appear if it had a mouth as an animal does? There is only one plant known as the Venus flytrap that has a mouth, so there is no need to conjure one up. (2) The Venus flytrap is a carnivore, meaning it eats meat, unlike the majority of plants. It consumes flies and other insects rather than hamburgers and chicken like people do. Because of the manner it entices its prey into its mouth before devouring it, the Venus flytrap was given its name after the Roman goddess of love, Venus. The plant waits immobile for its meal to arrive. It's dinner time when an insect goes into the mouth of a Venus flytrap without knowing what kind of plant it has landed on. (3) The "mouth" of the Venus flytrap has tiny, touch-sensitive hairs. These hairs clamp shut around the plant's prey when pressure is applied. It is uncommon for plants to move this quickly. The mouth shuts itself and transforms into a kind of stomach that digests the insect if it is too stuck to escape. (4) The Venus flytrap has a highly developed "mouth." The same hairs that are used to detect when an insect enters a trap are also used to distinguish between an insect and smaller particles like dust or pollen. The Venus flytrap's "mouth" won't close unless two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated. This makes the plant more successful at catching insects by preventing the "mouth" from shutting every time a bit of dirt hits it. (5) Don't expect to see the Venus flytrap in the woods behind the school because it is a rather uncommon plant. Venus flytraps prefer damp, marshy places, thus they frequent bogs close by. They only natively exist in the coastal bogs of the Carolinas in the United States. Although they have been successfully introduced to other regions, the Carolinas are still the only place where they naturally exist in the United States. To avoid becoming plant food, keep your hands away from their "mouths" if you spot one; otherwise, there's no reason to be afraid. How does the Venus flytrap determine when to close its "mouth" around an insect, according to the article?"
- The plant has a special ability to find insects even before they reach their mouths.
- The "mouth" has pressure-sensitive hairs that can pick up items as small as insects. (Correct answer)
- Due to its restricted vision, the plant can "see" what is in its mouth.
- The plant continuously opens and closes, but it doesn't start to break down a thing until it is an insect.
Correct answer: The "mouth" has pressure-sensitive hairs that can pick up items as small as insects.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 clearly explain the Venus flytrap's mechanism for detecting prey. They state that the 'mouth' has "tiny, touch-sensitive hairs" which detect pressure, and that the mouth only closes if "two or more of its pressure-sensitive hairs are activated," allowing it to distinguish insects from smaller particles like dust.
Question 15: Which word has the vowel I pronounced long?
- bin
- bring
- sit
- bite (Correct answer)
Correct answer: bite
A long 'i' vowel sound is pronounced like the letter name 'eye.' In the word "bite," the 'i' makes this long 'eye' sound. In contrast, "bin," "bring," and "sit" all contain the short 'i' sound, pronounced like the 'i' in 'igloo'.
Question 16: Which word has the short o vowel sound?
- Sock (Correct answer)
- Soak
- Stuck
- Stack
Correct answer: Sock
A short 'o' vowel sound is typically pronounced like the 'o' in words such as 'hot' or 'dog.' In the word "Sock," the 'o' makes this short 'ah' sound. In contrast, "Soak" has a long 'o' sound, "Stuck" has a short 'u' sound, and "Stack" has a short 'a' sound.
TABE Reading Practice Test 1
The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years.
The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of clas- sification.
The classifications (also known as Line taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons 5 seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analog- ical.
For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups—plants, animals, and humans.
According to this classifica- tion, human beings are not a special kind of 10 animal, nor animals a special kind of plant.
Thus any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical.
Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, 15 is sheer poetic metaphor.
Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle.
Instead of treat- ing plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested.
All living creatures 20 possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize.
Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their envi- ronments and move.
One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. 25 Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant.
Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from 30 human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical.
According to both classifications, the 35 human species is unique.
In the first, it has a king- dom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy.
Homo sapiens is unique.
All species are.
But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many 40 (probably most) people, philosophers included.
For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique.
It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to 45 how we explain certain qualities.
Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages.
For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees * not count as a genuine language.
I have never been 50 able to understand why.
I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still 55 remain bees.
It is equally important to some that no other species use tools.
No matter how inge- nious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." 60 I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools.
All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made.
Similar observa- 65 tions hold for rationality and anything a computer might do.
According to the author, what is most responsible for influencing our perception of a comparison between species?