2.4 Practice Test

Select the main argument against genetically modified mosquitoes in the podcast.

• The genetic modifications would destroy all species of mosquitoes.

• The long lasting negative effects caused to the ecosystem are unknown.

• The technology could prove dangerous to other species causing unknown mutations.

• The modified mosquitoes would self-destruct and would no longer be able to spread malaria.

Which sentence contains the most relevant and supportive evidence for the “Gene Editing” text’s argument in favor of gene editing.

• “For years, those tasks were both challenging and hit-and-miss.” (Paragraph 1)

• “A group of scientists at Harvard is even trying to bring a woolly mammoth back from extinction.” (Paragraph 3)

• “Its champions believe Crispr could help control pests, increase food production and eliminate human diseases.” (Paragraph 2)

• “Even though the scientists said the embryos could not grow into babies, the study was still controversial.” (Paragraph 5)

Select a sentence in the “Gene Editing” text where the author uses emotional appeal to support his argument.

• “Some scientists worry that germ-line editing would invite enhancements of babies for nonmedical reasons. For example, babies could be engineered to be extremely intelligent.” (Paragraph 10)

• “In late 2015, researchers published results on the first successful use of the technique to treat mature animals. They used Crispr to repair a defective gene in mice with muscular dystrophy.” (Paragraph 4)

• “Chinese researchers published results of a Crispr experiment on human embryos, or fertilized eggs. Even though the scientists said the embryos could not grow into babies, the study was still controversial.” (Paragraph 5)

• “The potential to do good is enormous: eliminating a genetic disease from a family forever. But if something goes wrong, the consequences are potentially eternal, too, affecting future generations who had no say in the matter.” (Paragraph 9)

Select the sentence containing irrelevant or inappropriate evidence to the author’s argument in the “Gene Editing” text.

• “Long ago, early civilizations realized that certain traits of crops, animals and humans were hereditary.” (Paragraph 1)

• “They discovered how to make "guides" that allow Crispr to skim along DNA, targeting exactly the right spot to make a slice.” (Paragraph 7)

• “In experiments with human cells, researchers have used Crispr to repair a mutation that causes blindness and to remove HIV from immune cells.” (Paragraph 4)

• “A researcher with basic skills and a few thousand dollars' worth of equipment can employ Crispr, creating enormous space for both scientific breakthroughs and abuse.” (Paragraph 8)

How do the podcast and the “Gene Editing” text differ in their interpretation of how the gene editing techniques would best be used?

• The podcast focuses on editing the genes of an insect species while the text focuses more on the effects of editing the genes of humans.

• The podcast realizes the potential dangers of creating mutant creatures while the text realizes that the technology may be abused by amateurs.

• The podcast recognizes the advantages of being able to control the genetic code of a species while the text recognizes the long term negative effects that may occur.

• The podcast explains how the Crispr technology has adapted to be incredibly reliable and precise while the text focuses on the evolution of the many errors made while using Crispr.