Adapted from "Save the Redwoods" by John Muir in Sierra Club Bulletin Volume XI Number 1 (January 1920)

Forty-seven years ago one of these Calaveras King Sequoias was laboriously cut down, that the stump might be had for a dancing-floor. Another, one of the finest in the grove, was skinned alive to a height of one hundred and sixteen feet and the bark sent to London to show how fine and big that Calaveras tree was—as sensible a scheme as skinning our great men would be to prove their greatness. Now some millmen want to cut all the Calaveras trees into lumber and money. No doubt these trees would make good lumber after passing through a sawmill, as George Washington after passing through the hands of a French cook would have made good food. But both for Washington and the tree that bears his name higher uses have been found.

Could one of these Sequoia Kings come to town in all its godlike majesty so as to be strikingly seen and allowed to plead its own cause, there would never again be any lack of defenders. And the same may be said of all the other Sequoia groves and forests of the Sierra with their companions and the noble Sequoia sempervirens, or redwood, of the coast mountains.

In these noble groves and forests to the southward of the Calaveras Grove the axe and saw have long been busy, and thousands of the finest Sequoias have been felled, blasted into manageable dimensions, and sawed into lumber by methods destructive almost beyond belief, while fires have spread still wider and more lamentable ruin. In the course of my explorations twenty-five years ago, I found five sawmills located on or near the lower margin of the Sequoia belt, all of which were cutting more or less [Sequoia gigantea] lumber, which looks like the redwood of the coast, and was sold as redwood. One of the smallest of these mills in the season of 1874 sawed two million feet of Sequoia lumber. Since that time other mills have been built among the Sequoias, notably the large ones on Kings River and the head of the Fresno. The destruction of these grand trees is still going on. On the other hand, the Calaveras Grove for forty years has been faithfully protected by Mr. Sperry, and with the exception of the two trees mentioned above is still in primeval beauty. For the thousands of acres of Sequoia forest outside of reservations and national parks, and in the hands of lumbermen, no help is in sight. 

Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot defend themselves or run away. And few destroyers of trees ever plant any; nor can planting avail much toward restoring our grand aboriginal giants. It took more than three thousand years to make some of the oldest of the Sequoias, trees that are still standing in perfect strength and beauty, waving and singing in the mighty forests of the Sierra.

Which of the following is one of the effects of the author's use of the phrase "skinned alive" in the first paragraph?

Adapted from “Feathers of Sea Birds and Wild Fowl for Bedding” from The Utility of Birds by Edward Forbush (ed. 1922)

In the colder countries of the world, the feathers and down of waterfowl have been in great demand for centuries. These materials have been used as filling for beds and pillows. Such feathers are perfect insulators of heat, and beds, pillows, or coverlets filled with them represent the acme of comfort and durability. 

The early settlers of New England saved for such purposes the feathers and down from the thousands of wild-fowl which they killed, but as the population of people increased, the quantity of feathers furnished in this manner became insufficient, and the people sought a larger supply in the vast colonies of ducks and geese along the Labrador coast. 

The manner in which the feathers and down were obtained, unlike the method practiced in Iceland, did not tend to conserve and protect the source of supply. In Iceland, the people have continued to receive for many years a considerable income by collecting eider down (the small, fluffy feathers of eider ducks), but there they do not “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.” Ducks line their nests with down plucked from their own breasts and that of the eider is particularly valuable for bedding. In Iceland, these birds are so carefully protected that they have become as tame and unsuspicious as domestic fowls In North America. Where they are constantly hunted they often conceal their nests in the midst of weeds or bushes, but in Iceland, they make their nests and deposit their eggs in holes dug for them in the sod. A supply of the ducks is maintained so that the people derive from them an annual income.

In North America, quite a different policy was pursued. The demand for feathers became so great in the New England colonies during the middle of the eighteenth century that vessels were sent to Labrador for the express purpose of securing the feathers and down of wild fowl. Eider down having become valuable and these ducks being in the habit of congregating by thousands on barren islands of the Labrador coast, the birds became the victims of the ships’ crews. As the ducks molt all their primary feathers at once in July or August and are then quite incapable of flight and the young birds are unable to fly until well grown, the hunters were able to surround the helpless birds, drive them together, and kill them with clubs. Otis says that millions of wildfowl were thus destroyed and that in a few years their haunts were so broken up by this wholesale slaughter and their numbers were so diminished that feather voyages became unprofitable and were given up. 

This practice, followed by the almost continual egging, clubbing, shooting, etc. by Labrador fishermen, may have been a chief factor in the extinction of the Labrador duck. No doubt had the eider duck been restricted in its breeding range to the islands of Labrador, it also would have been exterminated long ago.

What does the author mean by the phrase "to 'kill the goose that lays the golden eggs,'" underlined in the third paragraph?

When you hear the word “pirate,” you likely think of names such as Blackbeard or Henry Morgan. However, there exists a vast and interesting history of lesser-known pirates who have also shaped the term as we know it, and this history is just as deserving of our attention. 

For instance, in the fifteenth century, the pirate Pier Gerlofs Donia, better known as “Big Pier,” fought tirelessly against the Roman Empire and intimidated even the most fierce soldiers with the seven foot long sword he wielded, known as the “Zweihander.” When his crew captured a suspected enemy ship, he was known to determine friend from foe by forcing them to say: “Butter, bread, and green cheese: if you can’t say that, you’re not a real Frisian!” in his native tongue, as this was often difficult for enemies to pronounce correctly. Enemies who were unable to do so were sentenced to their doom!

Seventeenth century dutch pirate Laurens de Graaf is also an interesting story. While he is best known for his ship, the Tigre, and for evading capture and disappearing into mystery and myth, he was supposedly an interesting pirate to work for! Known as the “gentleman’s outlaw,” de Graaf would travel the seas with an arrangement of violins and trumpets, which he would play for his crew to keep spirits high.

Samuel Bellamy’s life poses yet another interesting, though ultimately tragic, story. When treasure hunter Bellamy found it difficult to make a living, he turned to piracy. Bellamy was known as a just captain, and even formed a democracy on his ship, earning the trust and respect of his men. Bellamy was also known as the wealthiest pirate ever, and in the short year or so that he roamed the seas, he acquired over $120 million in treasure. This wealth would be short-lived, however, as Bellamy and his ship sank to the bottom of the deep blue on their way back from the heist that would have allowed his entire crew to retire and live out the rest of their lives in peace. 

It is true that many of the icons we see in today’s movies, novels, and costumes come from some of history’s most well-known pirates. Nevertheless, those interested in knowing the full history and culture of what we know as “piracy” today should seek out the stories behind some of the world’s lesser-known tyrants of the sea.

In the context of paragraph three, “evading” most nearly means

When you hear the word “pirate,” you likely think of names such as Blackbeard or Henry Morgan. However, there exists a vast and interesting history of lesser-known pirates who have also shaped the term as we know it, and this history is just as deserving of our attention. 

For instance, in the fifteenth century, the pirate Pier Gerlofs Donia, better known as “Big Pier,” fought tirelessly against the Roman Empire and intimidated even the most fierce soldiers with the seven foot long sword he wielded, known as the “Zweihander.” When his crew captured a suspected enemy ship, he was known to determine friend from foe by forcing them to say: “Butter, bread, and green cheese: if you can’t say that, you’re not a real Frisian!” in his native tongue, as this was often difficult for enemies to pronounce correctly. Enemies who were unable to do so were sentenced to their doom!

Seventeenth century dutch pirate Laurens de Graaf is also an interesting story. While he is best known for his ship, the Tigre, and for evading capture and disappearing into mystery and myth, he was supposedly an interesting pirate to work for! Known as the “gentleman’s outlaw,” de Graaf would travel the seas with an arrangement of violins and trumpets, which he would play for his crew to keep spirits high.

Samuel Bellamy’s life poses yet another interesting, though ultimately tragic, story. When treasure hunter Bellamy found it difficult to make a living, he turned to piracy. Bellamy was known as a just captain, and even formed a democracy on his ship, earning the trust and respect of his men. Bellamy was also known as the wealthiest pirate ever, and in the short year or so that he roamed the seas, he acquired over $120 million in treasure. This wealth would be short-lived, however, as Bellamy and his ship sank to the bottom of the deep blue on their way back from the heist that would have allowed his entire crew to retire and live out the rest of their lives in peace. 

It is true that many of the icons we see in today’s movies, novels, and costumes come from some of history’s most well-known pirates. Nevertheless, those interested in knowing the full history and culture of what we know as “piracy” today should seek out the stories behind some of the world’s lesser-known tyrants of the sea.

In the context of paragraph four, “just” most nearly means

When you hear the word “pirate,” you likely think of names such as Blackbeard or Henry Morgan. However, there exists a vast and interesting history of lesser-known pirates who have also shaped the term as we know it, and this history is just as deserving of our attention. 

For instance, in the fifteenth century, the pirate Pier Gerlofs Donia, better known as “Big Pier,” fought tirelessly against the Roman Empire and intimidated even the most fierce soldiers with the seven foot long sword he wielded, known as the “Zweihander.” When his crew captured a suspected enemy ship, he was known to determine friend from foe by forcing them to say: “Butter, bread, and green cheese: if you can’t say that, you’re not a real Frisian!” in his native tongue, as this was often difficult for enemies to pronounce correctly. Enemies who were unable to do so were sentenced to their doom!

Seventeenth century dutch pirate Laurens de Graaf is also an interesting story. While he is best known for his ship, the Tigre, and for evading capture and disappearing into mystery and myth, he was supposedly an interesting pirate to work for! Known as the “gentleman’s outlaw,” de Graaf would travel the seas with an arrangement of violins and trumpets, which he would play for his crew to keep spirits high.

Samuel Bellamy’s life poses yet another interesting, though ultimately tragic, story. When treasure hunter Bellamy found it difficult to make a living, he turned to piracy. Bellamy was known as a just captain, and even formed a democracy on his ship, earning the trust and respect of his men. Bellamy was also known as the wealthiest pirate ever, and in the short year or so that he roamed the seas, he acquired over $120 million in treasure. This wealth would be short-lived, however, as Bellamy and his ship sank to the bottom of the deep blue on their way back from the heist that would have allowed his entire crew to retire and live out the rest of their lives in peace. 

It is true that many of the icons we see in today’s movies, novels, and costumes come from some of history’s most well-known pirates. Nevertheless, those interested in knowing the full history and culture of what we know as “piracy” today should seek out the stories behind some of the world’s lesser-known tyrants of the sea.

In the context of paragraph two, the phrase “native tongue” most likely refers to a country’s

Passage 1:

Encouraging the participation of video games in children and teenagers is a dangerous practice. These video games are often violent, and thus promote violence in everyday life. Such games have also been shown to encourage violence and anger problems in those already inclined toward violence. At an age at which it is important to foster cooperation among classmates and build friendships, the isolation that comes with excessive gaming makes students more likely to enter conflicts with other students and harms their ability to socialize. 

Video games have also been shown to be addictive. This trait makes gaming all the more dangerous, as exclusive focus on any one hobby can leave children without a well-rounded set of interests and skills. Those playing video games would benefit from other extracurriculars, such as arts or athletics. When children spend all their time playing video games, that leaves less time for more-productive tasks like joining a sport, learning to play an instrument, or picking up other more beneficial hobbies. Parents would be wise to discourage their children from playing video games and instead suggest they pick up a more constructive hobby. 

Passage 2:

Video games are often (and unfairly) blamed for negatively impacting children, but in reality they offer many benefits to those who choose “gaming” as a hobby. Studies show that children who play video games improve their motor skills, reasoning ability, and creative problem-solving when they do so. Additionally, evidence shows us that many find playing video games to be a way to socialize with friends and even build leadership skills, including how to delegate, work as a team, and prioritize tasks. Some have even linked these higher-order thinking skills to career success down the road. 

People who would villainize gaming claim that violent games make kids more violent. However, there is little, if any, evidence to show any connection between actions performed in a simulated game and tendencies in real life. In fact, many report that they find playing such games to be stress relieving, and say that these activities positively impact their mood. 

While it is important to limit kids’ daily consumption of any hobby, video games can be a great way to encourage their creative problem solving, leadership, and other valuable life skills!

In the context of the first paragraph of passage one, “foster” most nearly means

Passage 1:

Encouraging the participation of video games in children and teenagers is a dangerous practice. These video games are often violent, and thus promote violence in everyday life. Such games have also been shown to encourage violence and anger problems in those already inclined toward violence. At an age at which it is important to foster cooperation among classmates and build friendships, the isolation that comes with excessive gaming makes students more likely to enter conflicts with other students and harms their ability to socialize. 

Video games have also been shown to be addictive. This trait makes gaming all the more dangerous, as exclusive focus on any one hobby can leave children without a well-rounded set of interests and skills. Those playing video games would benefit from other extracurriculars, such as arts or athletics. When children spend all their time playing video games, that leaves less time for more-productive tasks like joining a sport, learning to play an instrument, or picking up other more beneficial hobbies. Parents would be wise to discourage their children from playing video games and instead suggest they pick up a more constructive hobby. 

Passage 2:

Video games are often (and unfairly) blamed for negatively impacting children, but in reality they offer many benefits to those who choose “gaming” as a hobby. Studies show that children who play video games improve their motor skills, reasoning ability, and creative problem-solving when they do so. Additionally, evidence shows us that many find playing video games to be a way to socialize with friends and even build leadership skills, including how to delegate, work as a team, and prioritize tasks. Some have even linked these higher-order thinking skills to career success down the road. 

People who would villainize gaming claim that violent games make kids more violent. However, there is little, if any, evidence to show any connection between actions performed in a simulated game and tendencies in real life. In fact, many report that they find playing such games to be stress relieving, and say that these activities positively impact their mood. 

While it is important to limit kids’ daily consumption of any hobby, video games can be a great way to encourage their creative problem solving, leadership, and other valuable life skills!

In the context of passage two paragraph two, “villainize” most nearly means 

Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.

The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed its “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance, has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor. 

Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public. 

Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans),  aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.

In the context of the passage, the word “fauna” in paragraph one most nearly means

Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.

The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed its “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance, has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor. 

Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public. 

Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans),  aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.

The author of the passage uses the word “yardstick” in paragraph four in order to

Until recently, there were two schools of thought on establishing "flagship" endangered species chosen for campaigns to make people aware of the need for action to protect animals from extinction. These flagship species are used in marketing and advertising not only to raise awareness but also to encourage people to take action - such as fundraising, voting, and recruiting others to join in - for fauna conservation as a whole.

The first concerns how recognizable the general public, the audience of most large-scale funding campaigns, finds a particular species. This concept is commonly termed its “public awareness.” This school of thought was built on the foundation that if an individual recognizes a species from prior knowledge, cultural context, or previous conservational and educational encounters (in a zoo environment or classroom setting, for instance) that individual would be more likely to note and respond to the severity of its endangered status. For instance, the panda bear, a known and beloved animal of both historical and pop-culture significance, has long been used as a flagship species for many conservation groups. However, recently emerging flagship species such as the pangolin have shown us that this cannot be the only factor. 

Alongside public awareness, conservation experts have long considered a factor they refer to as a “keystone species” designation in the flagstone selection process. Keystone species are those species that play an especially important role in their respective habitats or ecosystems. The otter, for example, plays a key role in balancing the kelp ecosystems in which it hunts. While this metric is important to the environmentalists in charge of distributing funds received, recent data has expressed the more minor role a keystone species designation seems to play in the motivations of the public. 

Recent studies by conservationists have questioned both the singularity and the extent to which the above classifications impact the decision making of the general public. Though more complicated to measure, a third designation, known as a species’ “charisma,” is now the yardstick by which most flagship species are classified. Addressing the charisma of a species involves establishing and collecting data concerning its ecological (interactions with humans/the environments of humans),  aesthetic (appealing to human emotions through physical appearance and immediately related behaviors), and corporeal (affection and socialization with humans over the short- and long-terms) characteristics. This process has been understandably criticized by some for its costs and failure to incorporate the severity of an endangered species’ status into designation, but its impact on the public has been unquestionable. While keystone and public awareness designations are still often applied in the field because of their practicality and comparative simplicity, charisma is now commonly accepted as the most accurate metric with which to judge a species’ flagship potential.

The author of the passage uses the word “understandably” in paragraph four in order to