Adding & Deleting Sentences

One of the most influential niche constructors is the earthworm, an organism found almost everywhere on the planet. 1 A scientist only concerned with evolution would predict that, in order to live on land, earthworms would have to significantly change. Earthworms didn’t change their physiology a great amount, however, instead, they changed the soil to make it more like the ocean in order to survive. Land with earthworms is less compacted, is more nutrient rich, and better mixed than land without them – leading to monumental changes in the ecosystem.

The author is considering adding the following sentence.

Earthworms were originally aquatic organisms that were ill-equipped to survive on land.

Should the author make this addition?

• Yes, because it explains the prediction made in the next sentence.

• No, because it distracts from the discussion on niche construction.

• Yes, because it adds information about the roles of earthworms as niche creators.

• No, because the author does not further address why this fact is important.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.1

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

CCSS.RI.9-10.6

CCSS.RI.9-10.8

For thousands of years, cooking was considered more of a practice than a science. Much of what chefs and food scientists alike knew about cooking came from conventional wisdom rather than carefully designed research. For individuals who considered cooking to be an art rather than a science, this seemed to be for the best; however, for physicist Nicholas Kurti and chemist Herve This, the lack on empirical knowledge around what we eat was not just an affront to science. It was a challenge. In 1988 the pair coined the term “molecular gastronomy,” which they defined as the investigation of the physical and chemical transformation that ingredients undergo during the course of cooking. They argued that if chefs understood these processes, they could produce dishes improved by the findings. 1

At this point, the author is considering adding the following sentence.

"The pair’s philosophy came from the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century, who believed that everything could be categorized and systematized."

Should the author make this addition here?

• Yes, because it reinforces a claim that is made earlier in the paragraph.

• No, because it distracts from the paragraph’s focus on early experiments in molecular gastronomy.

• No, because it is not relevant to the focus of the paragraph.

• Yes, because it explains the origin of the phrase “molecular gastronomy”.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

CCSS.RI.9-10.5

CCSS.RI.9-10.8

The Sagrada Familia has stood, incomplete, as part of the Barcelona skyline since the early phases of its construction in 1882. The project, originally intended to be a cathedral in the gothic style, was begun by the bookseller Joseph Maria Bocabella under the direction of the architect Francisco de Paula del Villar. Del Villar and Bocabella imagined a basilica modeled on the Gothic revival churches Bocabella had seen on trips to Italy. However, Bocabella’s ideal basilica never came to be. In 1883 del Villar resigned from the project, and 30-year old Antoni Gaudi, a young but already well-known architect from Catalonia, took over as lead architect.

Gaudi decided to depart from del Villar’s original Gothic design in favor of a more modern design. The new design was ambitious, featuring eighteen tall spires and four different facades on different sides of the basilica. But work on the new building was slow. Decades passed, and the work was still incomplete. In 1915, Gaudi - now 63 years old - abandoned all other work in favor of dedicating himself to the completion of the monumental church, but progress on the building was still slow. When pressured to speed up work on the monumental building, Gaudi was said to have replied, “My client is not in a hurry.” By the time Gaudi died in 1926, the basilica was only somewhere between 15 and 20 percent complete.

After Gaudi’s death, work stalled between 1936 and 1940 when Civil War broke out in Spain and again as World War II began, leaving the project years behind schedule. During the wars, Catalan anarchists destroyed part of the basilica and the models and designs Gaudi left for the builders, who were forced to reconstruct what plans they could, an arduous and time-consuming process. It took years for the project to get back on track; once it was, it was impossible to know whether additional construction would match Gaudi’s vision.

The Sagrada Familia, one of the most iconic structures in Barcelona, remains unfinished, a constant work-in-progress in the Barcelona skyline. Despite these setbacks, it is open to the public for both religious services and tourism, attracting over three million visitors a year. In fact, tourist entrance fees now pay for annual construction costs. 1

At this point, the author is considering adding the following sentence.

“Architects estimate that the building is now 70 percent complete and that the structure itself should be finished by 2026, one hundred years after Gaudi’s death."

Should the author make this addition here?

• .Yes, because it provides a conclusion that reminds readers of the grandeur of the Sagrada Familia.

• Yes, because it provides a conclusion that relates to the information given earlier in the passage

• No, because it is irrelevant to the main idea of the passage.

• No, because it distracts from the paragraph’s emphasis on construction costs.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

he following is an excerpt of an article from Popular Science, initially published in 2017.

Since their inception, Rorschach inkblots—named after Hermann Rorschach, the Swiss psychoanalyst who invented them—have been known to confuse the visual cortex. We tend to see what we want to see in them. And although their use in psychology has been debunked (whether you see a butterfly or a dancing clown in an image is not a reliable indication of your mental state), why we see different things at all remains a puzzle.

The idea for the new study came about because physicist Richard Taylor is developing bionic eyes to cure blindness in people who have had diseases of the retina. [1]

To understand why Rorschach inkblots have this enigmatic effect, Taylor and his team at the University of Oregon took lots of blots and analyzed them to see if they were fractals. Fractals are patterns that repeat themselves across different scales.

At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:

“In order to do that,” said Taylor, “we have to understand what normal vision is doing.”

Should the writer make this addition here?

• No, because it is better used elsewhere in the passage.

• No, because it doesn’t relate to Rorschach blots.

• Yes, because it helps answer why Rorschach blots look different to different people.

• Yes, because it provides context to how the study and bionic eyes are related.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

CCSS.RI.9-10.5

The following is an excerpt of the book Women and Women’s Work, initially published in 2012.

There is general agreement among today’s scientists that the scientific work of women has been historically undervalued. For example, Rosalind Franklin, a British physicist, was responsible for capturing the images that informed our modern understanding of the structures of DNA. [1] Her contributions were overshadowed by the work of James Watson and Francis Crick, who relied on her models in assembling their famous double-helix model, but neglected to provide her sufficient credit.

At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:

DNA is a complex molecule composed of nucleotide base pairs which transmits genetic information within living cells.

Should the writer make this addition here?

• No, because it distracts from the paragraph’s point that women’s scientific work is undervalued.

• No, because it undermines the paragraph’s claim about Franklin’s contributions.

• Yes, because it helps to explain why Watson and Crick neglected to credit Franklin for her images.

• Yes, because it reinforces the paragraph’s point about the complexity of DNA’s structure.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.1

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

CCSS.RI.9-10.6

CCSS.RI.9-10.8

The following is an excerpt of an article from Energy & Environmental Science, initially published in 2015.

It wasn’t evident from Stecker’s investigations that “fracking”—shortened from hydraulic fracturing—was correlated with unusual seismic activity. “In assembling our data, we drew from seismometers in the vicinity of more than 400 fracking sites worldwide, including almost 200 in the United States,” Stecker said. [1] “We found no significant uptick in seismic activity near fracking sites, much to our surprise,” Stecker said. She also noted, however, that earthquakes aren’t the only potential danger of fracking. “There are claims about groundwater contamination and air pollution that have yet to be sufficiently investigated,” she warned.

At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:

Seismometers are a tool used to measure large underground movements, like those caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity.

Should the writer make this addition here?

• No, because it blurs the paragraph’s focus on the steps involved in fracking.

• Yes, because it helps to explain a technical term used in the paragraph.

• Yes, because it supports Stecker’s claim that fracturing often causes earthquakes.

• No, because it contradicts Stecker’s description of her data collection methods.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

CCSS.W.9-10.2

CCSS.W.9-10.4

The following is an excerpt from the book J.D. Salinger: Beneath the Stories, initially published in 2006.

Salinger was responsible for, among other works, the collections Franny and Zooey and Nine Stories and the widely acclaimed novel The Catcher and the Rye. [1] Despite his notoriety during his lifetime, however, Salinger avoided contact with the outside world whenever possible. His retreat from the public eye began in 1951, soon after the publication of The Catcher in the Rye, and continued until his death in 2010. During those decades, he gave only a handful of interviews, including one published in 1971 usually described as his “last interview.”

At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:

It features Holden Caulfield, a teenager who recounts the story of his expulsion from a Pennsylvania boarding school.

Should the writer make this addition here?

• No, because it contradicts the parallels drawn between Salinger and his characters.

• Yes, because it helps to illustrate the extent of Salinger’s fame.

• Yes, because it provides details about Salinger’s own adolescence.

• No, because it blurs the paragraph’s focus on Salinger’s reclusive nature.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

CCSS.RL.9-10.2

The following is an excerpt of an article from American Theatre, initially published in 2012.

The modern musical, as enjoyed by millions of yearly theatregoers in New York, London, and across the world, has its foundations in the work of composers Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II. Their musical Oklahoma!, premiering on Broadway in 1943, is often cited as the first real entry in the “Golden Age” of musical theater. [1] Oklahoma! was celebrated by critics and audiences alike for its libretto, or “book,” which served to weave its songs together into a coherent story. The duo went on to write nearly a dozen more “book” musicals, most of which were critical and commercial successes.

At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:

Previous musicals had typically featured many popular songs with little connection to one another.

Should the writer make this addition here?

• Yes, because it supports the paragraph’s claim that Rodgers and Hammerstein were overrated by contemporary critics.

• Yes, because it helps to explain what made Oklahoma! different from previous shows.

• No, because it undermines the paragraph’s claim that Rodgers and Hammerstein were the first duo to write a musical.

• No, because it blurs the paragraph’s focus on modern musicals.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

The following is an excerpt from the book Psychology Explained: Breaking Down the Brain, initially published in 2009.

Confirmation bias is the tendency by which people interpret new information in a way that supports previously held beliefs. Psychologists have examined the phenomenon in a wide variety of contexts. [1] In one experiment, researchers presented subjects with self-described “strong” or “very strong” political beliefs with a series of claims about a particularly contentious politician. Half of the claims were positive, supporting the politician, while half were negative, condemning the politician. Later, when quizzed about the claims they had heard, subjects were far better at recalling those claims which aligned with their existing opinion on the politician, while they were seldom able to recall the others.

At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:

Confirmation bias is believed to arise at or near adolescence, although it has not been rigorously studied in children.

Should the writer make this addition here?

• Yes, because it helps to explain why psychologists are interested in confirmation bias.

• Yes, because it supports the paragraph’s claim that confirmation bias cannot be studied in an experimental setting.

• No, because it provides a detail which is unrelated to the example which follows.

• No, because it blurs the paragraph’s focus on methods to counteract confirmation bias.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.3

CCSS.RI.9-10.5

CCSS.RI.9-10.8

Evolutionary biologists have long believed that Canis lupus familiaris, the modern dog, is a direct evolutionary descendant of Canis lupus, the gray wolf. Recent developments in genomic sequencing have helped substantiate this belief, as the genetic differences which distinguish dogs from wolves can now be catalogued and studied at the smallest possible scale. [1] Data extrapolated from genomic sequencing now suggests that dogs were domesticated approximately 15,000 years ago.

At this point, the writer is considering adding the following sentence:

Archaeological evidence has long indicated that dogs, as we know them today, have existed for at least 14,000 years.

Should the writer make this addition here?

• Yes, because it provides a further example of how existing beliefs about dogs have been supported by genomic sequencing.

• No, because it undermines the paragraph’s claim that dogs have negligible genetic differences from wolves.

• No, because it blurs the paragraph’s focus on the steps involved in genomic sequencing.

• Yes, because it explains why humans were not involved in the domestication of wolves.

Tags

CCSS.RI.9-10.1

CCSS.RI.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.9-10.6

CCSS.RI.9-10.8

CCSS.W.9-10.9