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

As technology continues to advance, relics of much earlier innovations remain in the terms we use to describe today’s tech. These terms, often referred to as “technological fossil words,” have outlived their meaning, but are still used in conversation today. 

Perhaps the most well-known example of a technological fossil word is the term “DJ” or “Disc Jockey.” The term originated in a time when a DJ actually “jockeyed,” the machine playing a disc or record. Nowadays, a Disc Jockey is almost never seen with an actual disc, but the name lives on!

Technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use. When operators of the original phone that coined most of the terms we use today made a call, they would “dial” by turning an actual dial of rotating numbers. When they would “hang up,” they would physically hang the phone up on the wall, at which point the phone's pressure on the latch it hung on would end the call. Even the terms phone line and cell phone refer to aspects of telephone use that no longer apply today.

One of the most interesting and lesser-known of these technological fossil words is the term “soap opera.” Today, this term refers broadly to dramatic television programs. However, the history of the term comes from the radio dramas once sponsored by soap companies to entice housewives listening in during the day to purchase their products. 

From typing messages to “pen pals,” to “filming” a video, technological fossil words give us a glimpse into the history behind the tech we use today!

In the context of the passage, “jockeyed” most nearly means

As technology continues to advance, relics of much earlier innovations remain in the terms we use to describe today’s tech. These terms, often referred to as “technological fossil words,” have outlived their meaning, but are still used in conversation today. 

Perhaps the most well-known example of a technological fossil word is the term “DJ” or “Disc Jockey.” The term originated in a time when a DJ actually “jockeyed,” the machine playing a disc or record. Nowadays, a Disc Jockey is almost never seen with an actual disc, but the name lives on!

Technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use. When operators of the original phone that coined most of the terms we use today made a call, they would “dial” by turning an actual dial of rotating numbers. When they would “hang up,” they would physically hang the phone up on the wall, at which point the phone's pressure on the latch it hung on would end the call. Even the terms phone line and cell phone refer to aspects of telephone use that no longer apply today.

One of the most interesting and lesser-known of these technological fossil words is the term “soap opera.” Today, this term refers broadly to dramatic television programs. However, the history of the term comes from the radio dramas once sponsored by soap companies to entice housewives listening in during the day to purchase their products. 

From typing messages to “pen pals,” to “filming” a video, technological fossil words give us a glimpse into the history behind the tech we use today!

In the context of the passage, “relics” most nearly means

As technology continues to advance, relics of much earlier innovations remain in the terms we use to describe today’s tech. These terms, often referred to as “technological fossil words,” have outlived their meaning, but are still used in conversation today. 

Perhaps the most well-known example of a technological fossil word is the term “DJ” or “Disc Jockey.” The term originated in a time when a DJ actually “jockeyed,” the machine playing a disc or record. Nowadays, a Disc Jockey is almost never seen with an actual disc, but the name lives on!

Technological fossil words have also found their way into the language we use to describe phone use. When operators of the original phone that coined most of the terms we use today made a call, they would “dial” by turning an actual dial of rotating numbers. When they would “hang up,” they would physically hang the phone up on the wall, at which point the phone's pressure on the latch it hung on would end the call. Even the terms phone line and cell phone refer to aspects of telephone use that no longer apply today.

One of the most interesting and lesser-known of these technological fossil words is the term “soap opera.” Today, this term refers broadly to dramatic television programs. However, the history of the term comes from the radio dramas once sponsored by soap companies to entice housewives listening in during the day to purchase their products. 

From typing messages to “pen pals,” to “filming” a video, technological fossil words give us a glimpse into the history behind the tech we use today!

In the context of the passage, “entice” most nearly means

Passage 1:

When schools prepare elective courses for their students (courses that provide an optional list of classes to suit different students’ interests), they should not comply with pressures to make those classes more “practical” or “career driven.” Elective courses should be a way for students to express their creativity and interests in a format they enjoy, and should provide students with a break from the mundane math and English topics they’ve spent the day learning about. Whether it’s painting, photography, dodgeball, or gardening, elective courses should be a way for students to establish and embrace hobbies and interests, a break from an otherwise full day of learning all are subjected to. 

Passage 2: 

Elective courses provide an opportunity for students to branch out and take different courses from those of their classmates. However, too much emphasis in school has been placed on topics that most students will never use as adults! Most students will not grow up to be artists, or to use the Pythagorean theorem in their day-to-day lives. So, it’s only logical that elective courses should be focused on life skills students will find helpful as adults, such as personal finance and home economics. It’s never too early to build life skills that will make an individual more well-rounded as an adult!

Passage 3: 

Core classes are fighting a losing battle against electives for middle and highschool-aged children. While schools mean well when they encourage students to express their creativity in class, emphasis on elective classes must come at the direct expense of core material. Schools should understand that their job is to prepare children and young adults for the workforce, and should place more emphasis on STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) material. There is currently more demand for STEM workers than there are interested and qualified adults. Therefore, if we place more emphasis on STEM skills for students, we will encourage interest in the jobs most needed when those children grow up and plan for their careers.

In the context of Passage 1, mundane most nearly means