Adapted from Looking Backward: 2000 to 1887 by Edward Bellamy (1888)

I first saw the light in the city of Boston in the year 1857. "What" you say "eighteen fifty-seven? That is an odd slip. He means nineteen fifty-seven, of course." I beg pardon, but there is no mistake. It was about four in the afternoon of December the 26th, one day after Christmas, in the year 1857, not 1957, that I first breathed the east wind of Boston, which, I assure the reader, was at that remote period marked by the same penetrating quality characterizing it in the present year of grace, 2000.

These statements seem so absurd on their face, especially when I add that I am a young man apparently of about thirty years of age, that no person can be blamed for refusing to read another word of what promises to be a mere imposition upon his credulity. Nevertheless I earnestly assure the reader that no imposition is intended, and will undertake if he shall follow me a few pages to entirely convince him of this. If I may, then, provisionally assume, with the pledge of justifying the assumption, that I know better than the reader when I was born, I will go on with my narrative.

Which is the best form of the underlined section?

In the last day of classes (1), everyone was distracted and unable to do their (2) work.  Even the teacher, which normally (3) was attentive and cheery, seems (4) unable to focus.  The final test took (5) way too long for everyone to complete, and many of students (6) had put down his head (7) on the desk.  The sound of the heat blowing through the room was enough to put everyone (8) to sleep, and the teachers' (9) eyes began drooping despite hisself (10).  After what seemed an eternity; (11) the bell had rung (12) and everyone, including the teacher, ran out of the room.

Choose from the following four options the answer that best corrects the underlined mistake preceding the question number.  If there is no mistake or the original text is the best option, choose "NO CHANGE."

The world is full of contradictions and I am full of them as well. Every person has their quirks and I am no exception. I love sports but I am also lazy I love animals, but I am not a vegetarian and I love teaching but I hate taking classes. With all these contradictions how does a person like me make sense?  I would love to enlighten you!

What option make the underlined portion grammatically correct?

The cat made it clear to Jeremy whom was the boss around the house. The only time it showed him any affection was when it was time for the cat to be fed, the moment at which it would rub up against his legs and purr loudly enough to be heard. But as soon as the food hit the cat dish, it would run to the dish, gorging itself, and then ignore him the rest of the day. If he attempts to pet the cat at any other time, it will hiss and spit at him trying to bite him. Playing with the cat was even worst because it would wait until Jeremy was dangling something over it's face and then leap up to sink its fangs into his' hand. Eventually he would give up trying to be affectionate toward the cat and simply interacted with it every morning at feeding time. It was safer that way.

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded portion of the passage. If the bolded portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

Adapted from The Life of Christopher Columbus by Edward Everett Hale (1891 G. L. Howe and Co. ed.)

Columbus had always meant to sail first for the Canaries, which were the most western land then known in the latitude of its voyage. From Lisbon to the famous city of "Quisay," or "Quinsay," in Asia, Toscanelli, his learned correspondent, supposed the distance to be less than one thousand leagues westward. From the Canary islands, on that supposition, the distance would be ten degrees less. The distance to Cipango, or Japan, would be much less. As it proved, the squadron had to make some stay at the Canaries. The rudder of the Pinta was disabled, and she proved leaky. It was suspected that the owners, from whom she had been forcibly taken, had intentionally disabled her, or that possibly the crew had injured her. But Columbus says in his journal that Martin Alonso Pinzon, captain of the Pinta, was a man of capacity and courage, and that this quieted his apprehensions. From the ninth of August to the second of September, nearly four weeks were spent by the Pinta and her crew at the Grand Canary island, and she was repaired. She proved afterwards a serviceable vessel, the fastest of the fleet. At the Canaries they heard stories of lands seen to the westward, to which Columbus refers in his journal. On the sixth of September they sailed from Gomera and on the eighth they lost sight of land. Nor did they see land again for thirty-three days. Such was the length of the great voyage. All the time, most naturally, they were wishing for signs, not of land perhaps, but which might show whether this great ocean were really different from other seas. On the whole the voyage was not a dangerous one.

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the passage. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

“Justice and Parents”

We tend to think of justice as a matter of strict equality.  For example if someone wants to buy an item, they are understandably expected to pay an amount that is roughly equal to its value.  Likewise, when a law declares that the penalty for speeding is $150, it is considered just that one who breaks this law pays the fine.  However, justice can also pertain to matters that are beyond mere equality.

An obvious example of this is the case of the relationship between children and their parents.  Unlike the cases discussed earlier, children will have had little opportunity to repay they’re parents for all that they have done for them.  Technically speaking, strict “equality” would require the child to give birth to the parents.  This is an absurd thing to suggest.  Similarly absurd is the suggestion that children should directly repay the rearing offered by parents.  Once again, strict equality cannot occur in the child-parent relationship.

However, there is a kind of justice between children and his or her parents.  For example, when a parent ages and is in need of assistance, if the adult child can provide assistance but refuses to do so.  This is a kind of injustice to the parents.  On a more positive note.  For example, an adult child might send his parents on a cruise in memory of their anniversary.  Such an action would be a kind of “justice” done to the parents—at least in that it recognizes the immense debt that is owed by the child to the parents in question.

In these (and many other cases), justice is less about equality than it is about paying what one can pay.  That is, in such cases, both justice or injustice is determined by worthiness that surpasses mere equality.  This kind of justice could be called justice above justice.  That is, it is a kind of justice that surpasses the “normal” justice of equality.  Such acts of justice ensure that society does not become reduced to the cold calculation of equality but, instead, has the warmth of true affection and loving gratitude.

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

“What is Leisure?”

It would likely surprise [1] modern readers if he or she were told that the meaning of life is leisure. This seems to be the same thing as saying that the meaning of life is nothing more than relaxing by the side of the pool. [2] One can imagine almost anyone thinking to himself, “What a preposterous idea.” This idea is not as foreign as it might appear at first glance. Indeed, [3] it could be considered the classic Western position about the very meaning of life. [4] This, of course, lies in contrast to all other global positions, but that’s a topic for another day.

[5] Of course, we need to understand what is meant by the word leisure if we are going to understand this assertion. The best way to understand this is to consider a contrast between two different kinds of activity. [6] On the one hand, there are many activities that are for the sake of something else. [7] On the other hand. There are those activities that are done for their own sake. These latter kinds of activities are those that are properly understood as being leisurely. [8] For example, when someone cuts onions for a meal, the cutting of the onions is not done for their own sake. The easiest way to figure out if something is being done for the sake of another end is to ask, “Why are you doing that.” [9] The onion cutter will answer, “I am doing it so that I can make dinner.” This helps us to see that the cutting of the onions is for the sake of something else. [10] Indeed, even the eating of dinner is for the sake of something else, namely attaining adequate nutrition.

[11] In contrast to these examples, leisurely activities are those that are done for they’re own sake. [12] For example, ask someone who enjoys organ music why he is listening to an organ concert. The answer will almost certainly be, “For the sake of listening to organ music. It is that important and beautiful!” Many things can be considered leisurely, including forms of games that are played merely for their own enjoyment; however, it is important to bear in mind that there is a hierarchy of goods. [13] Some types of leisure are better than others and likely are more preferable.

Choose the answer that best corrects section [2].

“What is Leisure?” 

It would likely surprise [1] modern readers if he or she were told that the meaning of life is leisure. This seems to be the same thing as saying that the meaning of life is nothing more than relaxing by the side of the pool. [2] One can imagine almost anyone thinking to himself, “What a preposterous idea.” This idea is not as foreign as it might appear at first glance. Indeed, [3] it could be considered the classic Western position about the very meaning of life. [4] This, of course, lies in contrast to all other global positions, but that’s a topic for another day.

[5] Of course, we need to understand what is meant by the word leisure if we are going to understand this assertion. The best way to understand this is to consider a contrast between two different kinds of activity. [6] On the one hand, there are many activities that are for the sake of something else. [7] On the other hand. There are those activities that are done for their own sake. These latter kinds of activities are those that are properly understood as being leisurely. [8] For example, when someone cuts onions for a meal, the cutting of the onions is not done for their own sake. The easiest way to figure out if something is being done for the sake of another end is to ask, “Why are you doing that.” [9] The onion cutter will answer, “I am doing it so that I can make dinner.” This helps us to see that the cutting of the onions is for the sake of something else. [10] Indeed, even the eating of dinner is for the sake of something else, namely attaining adequate nutrition.

[11] In contrast to these examples, leisurely activities are those that are done for they’re own sake. [12] For example, ask someone who enjoys organ music why he is listening to an organ concert. The answer will almost certainly be, “For the sake of listening to organ music. It is that important and beautiful!” Many things can be considered leisurely, including forms of games that are played merely for their own enjoyment; however, it is important to bear in mind that there is a hierarchy of goods. [13] Some types of leisure are better than others and likely are more preferable.

Choose the answer that best corrects section [12].

“The Common Good: The United Aim of Many” [24]

Among the many topics that are misunderstood [16] in political science, and political philosophy, the notion of the “common good” ranks foremost. Often, we think of the common good as being nothing more than getting “the most things for the most people.” For example, when a person makes multiple millions of dollars, people will often say, [17] “He should give back some of that money, for the sake of the common good.” Whether or not such people [18] should do this with his money, this is really an improper use of the expression the common good.

A better way to understand the common good is to think about common ends or common goals. An example will help to explain this. Think of a group of musicians on a stage. If all of these people came together to practice in the same room, we wouldn’t call them a symphony. [19] A mass of people just playing any music whatsoever are not a symphony. A symphony is an organized group; a mass of people is just a mass of people. Nothing physically differs regarding the mass of people and the symphony. [20] They are both made up of the same “stuff,” namely a group of musicians.

However, a common good changes [21] this mass into something that they never could be without that common good. [22] When these musicians come together to play the Dies Irae of Mozart, they become something that they never were as individuals.  Each member of the group uses his or her personal skill for the sake of a new, common performance. Perhaps the tuba player loves to play loudly.  Perhaps the lead violinist loves playing quickly.  These preferences must be channeled and limited for the sake of the common enterprise of playing Mozart’s stirring piece of music. [23] The desires of the individual instrumentalists, whom play the music, no longer reigns supreme.

The common good unites this group. If you were to ask the tuba player, what are you doing, he would answer, “Taking part in the symphonic playing of the Dies Irae.” [24] Then, if you were to ask any other musician the same question, he or she would answer in the same way. The answer would not be, “playing the Dies Irae my way.” If that were the answer, the musician would not be part of the symphony. He or she would be doing something private, not something that is truly common.

How should underlined selection [24] be changed?