Passage 1:

Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.

Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.

Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.

Passage 2:

Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.

Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.

Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.

Which of the following expresses a point the authors of both passages agree on?

Passage 1:

Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.

Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.

Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.

Passage 2:

Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.

Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.

Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.

Which of the following expresses a point the authors of the passages disagree with one another about?

Passage 1:

Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.

Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.

Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.

Passage 2:

Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.

Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.

Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.

Who would be most likely to agree with the following statement?

The history of graffiti is rooted in anarchy and rebellion.

Passage 1:

Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.

Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.

Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.

Passage 2:

Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.

Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.

Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.

If the following evidence were provided, which argument would it most support?

A well-known local graffiti artist has partnered with the local art museum to host a “beautify the city” project teaching children street art and the importance of service to the community.

Passage 1:

Graffiti - the public drawings and paintings that often cover surfaces of walls and other public structures - are often written off as an act of vandalism. However, the time has finally come when we begin to recognize graffiti for the art form it truly is.

Artists such as Banksy have shown us that graffiti can be a way to showcase not only one’s talent in the visual arts but also one’s political and social causes and stances. Some cities have even come to embrace graffiti to such an extent that they have commissioned works of art from these artists on the facades of public buildings.

Although graffiti began as an act of anarchy and rebellion, its contributions to society and the communities impacted by the art have seen positive responses that far outweigh the negatives. Graffiti is no longer a costly nuisance that should be immediately covered or removed, it has instead flourished to become an entirely new and unique art form with talent and renown that will eventually come to match the household names “Picasso” and “Michaelangelo” in stature.

Passage 2:

Though some might idolize graffiti as an act of admirable rebellion, this “art” causes nothing but negative impacts on its community. Those who would vandalize their streets and neighborhoods are no friend to the community. Instead, these criminals deface properties, decrease home values, and leave the community looking less pristine and cared for.

Such vandals also disregard the work put in by maintenance workers cleaning up after their messes and government officials attempting to create a better community for their citizens. While the work created by graffiti “artists” can sometimes be visually impressive, this does not outweigh the fact that what they have created is not art, but a crime against the community.

Popular graffiti “artists” auctioning work off for thousands of dollars apiece only perpetuate this trend. It is high time we put a stop to these criminal activities rather than glorifying them and allow true artists who follow city policies and stick to canvas or sculpture their due respect.

Which of the following is a term the authors of both passages might use to describe graffiti?

“The Petrified Forest of Arizona” by E.A. J. Seddon, Associate Editor, Southern Division in The Mountain States Monitor, September 1918.

The Petrified Forest of Arizona is an area covered with the fossil remains of prehistoric trees. The name “Petrified Forest” is somewhat of a misnomer: the word “forest” suggests standing trees, but these trees fell over long ago and have been preserved in stone. At one time, they formed part of a forest of gigantic trees. They proudly reared their heads above the surrounding country, but they were conquered and laid low by some force of nature.

Then began the process of embalming and preserving these fallen monarchs. They were buried thousands of feet beneath the bottom of an inland sea. This was a vast pickling vat where the wood was slowly converted into living gems. We can tell this because volcanic cones and mineral springs still exist in the area. 

Water containing minerals slowly forced its way into the trunks and limbs and roots of the fallen monarchs under a terrific pressure. Eventually, the woody material was gradually replaced by silica, a type of rock. Iron oxides were present in the silica. These oxides created brilliant and beautiful brown, yellow, and red colors in the rock. 

Eventually, the sediment containing the petrified trees was thrown up from nature’s subterranean chemical laboratory. The wrappings of the dead monarchs were slowly washed away by erosion and corrosion. Then the glorious sun shone upon the trees once again. They were no longer rulers of the kingdom of flora, but preserved for all time as agate, jasper, opal, and other forms of silica.

The passage could be improved if the evidence presented in which of the following sentence pairs were explained more?

Every day it seems, new inventions surface that promise to add value to our day-to-day lives. But did you know, many of the inventions we interact with on a daily basis were developed completely by accident?

Take the microwave, for instance. This accidental invention was developed by engineer Percy Spencer who, upon experimenting with a microwave-emitting magnetron, found that the candy bar in his pocket had begun to melt. Spencer was then able to harness this radiation into the microwave we use today to make snack time a speedy process!

Perhaps one of the most well-known accidental inventions of today, the potato chip was born when a customer kept requesting that his french fries be sliced thinner and made crispier. Though chef George Crum responded with the chips as a joke, they quickly became a favorite snack around the world!

Even the match is a result of accidental invention. When pharmacist John Walker was stirring chemicals, he noticed that the end of his stirring stick had dried into a hardened lump. When attempting to scrape the dried residue off, a flame sparked, and so did Walker’s idea to turn this accident into a helpful tool!

So, the next time your science experiment doesn’t go as planned, or you burn what you have cooked on the stove, keep in mind that some of today’s most valued inventions were discovered when the inventor least expected it!

We can conclude from the passage that engineer Percy Spencer

Every day it seems, new inventions surface that promise to add value to our day-to-day lives. But did you know, many of the inventions we interact with on a daily basis were developed completely by accident?

Take the microwave, for instance. This accidental invention was developed by engineer Percy Spencer who, upon experimenting with a microwave-emitting magnetron, found that the candy bar in his pocket had begun to melt. Spencer was then able to harness this radiation into the microwave we use today to make snack time a speedy process!

Perhaps one of the most well-known accidental inventions of today, the potato chip was born when a customer kept requesting that his french fries be sliced thinner and made crispier. Though chef George Crum responded with the chips as a joke, they quickly became a favorite snack around the world!

Even the match is a result of accidental invention. When pharmacist John Walker was stirring chemicals, he noticed that the end of his stirring stick had dried into a hardened lump. When attempting to scrape the dried residue off, a flame sparked, and so did Walker’s idea to turn this accident into a helpful tool!

So, the next time your science experiment doesn’t go as planned, or you burn what you have cooked on the stove, keep in mind that some of today’s most valued inventions were discovered when the inventor least expected it!

We can conclude from the passage that the chemicals John Walker was working with were

You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.

Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.

Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the horde and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.

Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.

Based on the passage, we can conclude that Alexandre Berthier

You likely hear the name “Napoleon Bonaparte” and immediately think of the short in stature and short in temper French emperor. But have you heard about his most embarrassing surrender? No, not Waterloo! Not Laon or the battle of La Rothiere either! Napoleon's most laughable defeat came well before his loss at Waterloo, in the summer of 1807.

Despite Napoleon's great renown as a brilliant military leader, he once retreated frantically from an army of ….bunnies! You heard that right! Shortly after Napoleon’s Treaties of Tilsit was penned, the emperor planned to celebrate with his fellow military men the best way he knew how - a hunt! Napoleon ordered the chief of staff, Alexandre Berthier, to organize an extravagant rabbit hunt for Napoleon and his men.

Not to be outdone, Berthier collected what was estimated to be between hundreds and thousands of rabbits for the hunt. However, while Berthier assumed that, like wild rabbits, these village-raised rabbits would scurry at the sight of Napoleon and his men, exactly the opposite was true. When the day came and the hunting party was ready for the chase, the bunnies were released. But instead of running for the woods, the swarm of rabbits came straight for Napoleon and his men. Though the men initially attempted to fight back, they were overwhelmed by the horde and fled to their coaches on a panicked retreat. It was not until the coaches sped away, rabbits still hopping aboard even as they attempted to retreat, that Napoleon was able to escape the furry army.

Embarrassed in front of the military peers and subordinates who once respected him, Napoleon fled home from a battle he never anticipated, and one he would never fully recover from the battle of the bunnies.

Which of the following cannot be reasonably concluded based on the passage?