TSI practice 2

The idea that humans can’t breathe underwater is a simple and openly accepted fact of nature. What many don’t know, however, is that humans can breathe when submerged in certain, specific liquids, like oxygen-rich perfluorocarbons. This isn’t to say that we’ll soon have pools that you can submerge yourself in indefinitely. Evidence suggests that our bodies may only be able to process this oxygen for a limited time. Experts are looking into practical applications of these liquids, however, like in the treatment of premature infants, where clinical trials have proven fruitful.

According to the passage, “the idea that humans can’t breathe underwater” is

• false, because experts have found a liquid that humans can breathe in.

• false, because scientists have invented a way to breathe underwater.

• true, but studies show humans will soon evolve to be able to do so.

• true, but experts have found other liquids that humans can breathe in.

Answer explanation

Question 1 Explanation: 

The correct answer is (D). The passage never refutes the fact that humans cannot breathe in water, so the answers stating “false” must be incorrect. Rather, the passage states that humans can breathe in “certain, specific liquids, like oxygen-rich perfluorocarbons.” Thus, humans cannot breathe in water, but they can breathe in liquids other than water. The passage does not mention anything to indicate that humans will soon evolve to breathe in water either.

(1) Taxes in the US are incredibly complicated and it’s these complications that lead to constant uninformed debates about our tax policies. (2) Regardless of whether you believe that our tax system is good or bad, there is a common misconception that is shaping debate, motivating voters, and therefore affecting policy. (3) Our taxes work on a progressive system, which means that the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. (4) Most uninformed citizens think that this means that someone in a higher tax bracket will pay a higher rate for all of their income. (5) However, our tax brackets are tiered, which means that when you enter a higher tax bracket, only the income you make above the given threshold will be taxed at the higher rate. (6) Many people believe that entering a higher tax bracket means paying more in taxes and therefore netting less income. (7) This is fundamentally untrue. (8) Let’s look at a hypothetical tax situation. (9) Imagine that you make $51,000 a year of gross income and that the extra $1,000 you earn above $50,000 puts you into a higher tax bracket. (10) Many people inaccurately believe that they will now be taxed a higher percentage on all $51,000 of their income. (11) In reality, however, your $50,000 will be taxed on the lower rate associated with that bracket or tier, and only the $1,000 you made beyond that will be taxed at the higher rate. (12) Unfortunately, taxes are incredibly complicated, and there are a lot of nuances that ordinary citizens just don’t have the time to learn. (13) But, if everyone understands this one, simple concept, we can elevate the level of economic discourse we have in this country.

What is the author implying in sentence 12?

• The US tax system is intentionally confusing so people pay more money.

• This is just one of many nuances that common Americans don’t understand.

• American taxpayers are unwilling to learn about the US tax system

• Understanding this nuance is the most important way to stay informed.

Answer explanation

Question 15 Explanation: 

The correct answer is (B). In sentence 12, the author once again mentions how complicated the tax system is and states that there are “a lot of nuances” that individuals aren’t aware of. Since the passage only explains one nuance of the system, it implies that there are many more. There is no evidence that the author believes taxes are purposely confusing. They also state that taxpayers “don’t have the time to learn” about all the nuances, not that they’re too lazy to learn. Finally, sentence 12 has nothing to say about this one misconception being the “most important,” but rather points out that there are many more to learn.

(1) Taxes in the US are incredibly complicated and it’s these complications that lead to constant uninformed debates about our tax policies. (2) Regardless of whether you believe that our tax system is good or bad, there is a common misconception that is shaping debate, motivating voters, and therefore affecting policy. (3) Our taxes work on a progressive system, which means that the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. (4) Most uninformed citizens think that this means that someone in a higher tax bracket will pay a higher rate for all of their income. (5) However, our tax brackets are tiered, which means that when you enter a higher tax bracket, only the income you make above the given threshold will be taxed at the higher rate. (6) Many people believe that entering a higher tax bracket means paying more in taxes and therefore netting less income. (7) This is fundamentally untrue. (8) Let’s look at a hypothetical tax situation. (9) Imagine that you make $51,000 a year of gross income and that the extra $1,000 you earn above $50,000 puts you into a higher tax bracket. (10) Many people inaccurately believe that they will now be taxed a higher percentage on all $51,000 of their income. (11) In reality, however, your $50,000 will be taxed on the lower rate associated with that bracket or tier, and only the $1,000 you made beyond that will be taxed at the higher rate. (12) Unfortunately, taxes are incredibly complicated, and there are a lot of nuances that ordinary citizens just don’t have the time to learn. (13) But, if everyone understands this one, simple concept, we can elevate the level of economic discourse we have in this country.

When the author uses the pronoun “this” in sentence 7, to what is she referring?

• The US tax system and all of its complications

• The belief that a progressive tax system is the best way to tax US citizens.

• The idea that people pay different tax rates based on their income.

• The misconception that entering a higher tax bracket means less net income.

Answer explanation

Question 14 Explanation: 

The correct answer is (D). Sentence 7 refers entirely to the preceding sentence, sentence 6. As sentence 6 explains the belief that “entering a higher tax bracket means paying more in taxes and therefore netting less income,” it is clear that is what the author is calling “fundamentally untrue.”

(1) Taxes in the US are incredibly complicated and it’s these complications that lead to constant uninformed debates about our tax policies. (2) Regardless of whether you believe that our tax system is good or bad, there is a common misconception that is shaping debate, motivating voters, and therefore affecting policy. (3) Our taxes work on a progressive system, which means that the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. (4) Most uninformed citizens think that this means that someone in a higher tax bracket will pay a higher rate for all of their income. (5) However, our tax brackets are tiered, which means that when you enter a higher tax bracket, only the income you make above the given threshold will be taxed at the higher rate. (6) Many people believe that entering a higher tax bracket means paying more in taxes and therefore netting less income. (7) This is fundamentally untrue. (8) Let’s look at a hypothetical tax situation. (9) Imagine that you make $51,000 a year of gross income and that the extra $1,000 you earn above $50,000 puts you into a higher tax bracket. (10) Many people inaccurately believe that they will now be taxed a higher percentage on all $51,000 of their income. (11) In reality, however, your $50,000 will be taxed on the lower rate associated with that bracket or tier, and only the $1,000 you made beyond that will be taxed at the higher rate. (12) Unfortunately, taxes are incredibly complicated, and there are a lot of nuances that ordinary citizens just don’t have the time to learn. (13) But, if everyone understands this one, simple concept, we can elevate the level of economic discourse we have in this country.

According to the passage, when an American taxpayer’s income breaks the threshold of their tax bracket, they

• pay a higher tax rate only on the income that puts them into the higher bracket.

• pay a higher tax rate on all of their income

• pay the same tax rate on all of their income.

• lose money because they’re being taxed on a different bracket.

Answer explanation

Question 13 Explanation: 

The correct answer is (A). The author provides an example to demonstrate how progressive taxation works. They describe a situation in which an extra $1,000 of income puts you in a higher tax bracket, and only that $1,000 gets taxed at the higher rate. The rest of your income, which is in a lower tax bracket, continues to be taxed at a lower rate. If your income reaches into multiple tax brackets, you will be paying multiple different rates. The author also points out that entering a new tax bracket does not net less income, and therefore taxpayers are not “losing money.”

(1) Taxes in the US are incredibly complicated and it’s these complications that lead to constant uninformed debates about our tax policies. (2) Regardless of whether you believe that our tax system is good or bad, there is a common misconception that is shaping debate, motivating voters, and therefore affecting policy. (3) Our taxes work on a progressive system, which means that the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. (4) Most uninformed citizens think that this means that someone in a higher tax bracket will pay a higher rate for all of their income. (5) However, our tax brackets are tiered, which means that when you enter a higher tax bracket, only the income you make above the given threshold will be taxed at the higher rate. (6) Many people believe that entering a higher tax bracket means paying more in taxes and therefore netting less income. (7) This is fundamentally untrue. (8) Let’s look at a hypothetical tax situation. (9) Imagine that you make $51,000 a year of gross income and that the extra $1,000 you earn above $50,000 puts you into a higher tax bracket. (10) Many people inaccurately believe that they will now be taxed a higher percentage on all $51,000 of their income. (11) In reality, however, your $50,000 will be taxed on the lower rate associated with that bracket or tier, and only the $1,000 you made beyond that will be taxed at the higher rate. (12) Unfortunately, taxes are incredibly complicated, and there are a lot of nuances that ordinary citizens just don’t have the time to learn. (13) But, if everyone understands this one, simple concept, we can elevate the level of economic discourse we have in this country.

The main purpose of the passage is to?

• aud the US tax system and resist change.

• inform readers and inspire more elevated economic discourse.

• criticize the US tax system and propose a change.

• inform readers about their rights so they don’t overpay their taxes.

Passage 1 With all of the advances that our society has made, it’s frustrating to see people rejecting science. Too many people in modern society look at scientific evidence as though it is myth. They willfully reject vaccinations, under the auspice that these immunizations are causing other diseases and disorders. Despite plenty of scientific evidence to support the efficacy of vaccinations, as well as no significant evidence linking these vaccines to other conditions, people continue to refuse to vaccinate their children. We have so much knowledge at our fingertips, and yet we doubt the science that smarter people than us have already proven as fact.

 

Passage 2 While the claim that vaccinations cause autism may not hold much weight, it’s not crazy to hold a reasonable distrust of pharmaceutical companies. There may be scientific evidence that certain vaccines are helpful, but can we really trust our healthcare industry to put the health of our citizens over their own profit? How do we really know that all of these vaccines are meant to help, and not meant to keep people sick, feeding more money into the system? It’s hard to believe that an industry that makes insulin so expensive that people are dying from lack of medication would be looking out for our best interests.

The authors of these two passages would most likely agree with the which of the following statements?

• Scientific studies can be manipulated to trick the public

• Regardless of doubts you may have, you must still get you and your children vaccinated.

• There is scientific evidence that some vaccines are helpful.

• The healthcare industry is designed to keep people sick.

Passage 1 With all of the advances that our society has made, it’s frustrating to see people rejecting science. Too many people in modern society look at scientific evidence as though it is myth. They willfully reject vaccinations, under the auspice that these immunizations are causing other diseases and disorders. Despite plenty of scientific evidence to support the efficacy of vaccinations, as well as no significant evidence linking these vaccines to other conditions, people continue to refuse to vaccinate their children. We have so much knowledge at our fingertips, and yet we doubt the science that smarter people than us have already proven as fact.

 

Passage 2 While the claim that vaccinations cause autism may not hold much weight, it’s not crazy to hold a reasonable distrust of pharmaceutical companies. There may be scientific evidence that certain vaccines are helpful, but can we really trust our healthcare industry to put the health of our citizens over their own profit? How do we really know that all of these vaccines are meant to help, and not meant to keep people sick, feeding more money into the system? It’s hard to believe that an industry that makes insulin so expensive that people are dying from lack of medication would be looking out for our best interests.

The author of Passage 1 would most likely criticize the author of Passage 2 for

• trusting conspiracy theories over proven science

• spreading lies about vaccinations

• trying to make money off of people’s fears.

• working for an organization that intentionally misleads the public.

In the last 10 years, experts have made some important discoveries regarding human evolution. Perhaps most interesting is the discovery of tools that change our understanding of how quickly human evolution progressed. Based on fossils found in a site in China, we now know that humans were making tools in Asia hundreds of thousands of years earlier than we originally believed. Experts have also found fossil evidence of tools from Sulawesi, an island in Indonesia, that predates modern human inhabitation of the island. This suggests that there is a as-of-yet undiscovered species of humans on the island before modern humans were there.

The main idea of the passage is that new fossil discoveries

• are changing the scientific community’s entire understanding of the evolutionary process.

• are proving many of the anthropological community’s long-held theories.

• are making experts question whether evolution really exists in nature.

• are forcing experts to rethink some of their previously held notions of early humans.

Answer explanation

Question 9 Explanation: 

The correct answer is (D). The passage provides two examples of new discoveries changing what scientists previously believed: Tools were being made in Asia much earlier than experts expected, and tools found on Sulawesi may point to a species of humans scientists don’t even know about yet. These examples show how experts must rethink previous assumptions about the past. The article does not describe an entire overhaul on the scientific community’s understanding of evolution itself, nor does it discuss the possibility of evolution not existing at all. As the passage focuses on disproving some of the scientific community’s notions, it clearly does not prove long-held theories.

New scientific studies suggest that it may be possible for humans to bring extinct species of animals back to life. This doesn’t exactly mean we can expect to visit Jurassic Park anytime soon, but it does bring up some important ethical questions. If we learn how to bring extinct species back to life, would it be ethical for us to do so? Many worry that these types of practices could be hubristic, arguing that the power to create life is not one that we should meddle with. Others argue, though, that humanity could right a lot of its wrongs, bringing back species that we have over-hunted or mistreated in the past.

The final sentence of the passage implies which of the following?

• Animals are beautiful and deserve all the help we can give them.

• There may be an ethical problem with bringing extinct animals back to life.

• We owe it to some extinct animals to bring them back because of what we did to them.

• Humanity has a history of causing animals to go extinct.

Answer explanation

Animals are beautiful and deserve all the help we can give them.

B

There may be an ethical problem with bringing extinct animals back to life.

C

We owe it to some extinct animals to bring them back because of what we did to them.

Humanity has a history of causing animals to go extinct.

Question 8 Explanation: 

The correct answer is (D). The correct answer is something the last sentence implies, which means it is being indirectly suggested. The last sentence talks about our “wrongs,” in which humanity has over-hunted and mistreated animals that are now no longer in existence. The implication here is that humanity has a history of making animals go extinct. Nothing in the last sentence implies that animals are beautiful and deserve our help, nor the ethical problems that could arise. The sentence directly states that we should bring animals back because of our own actions.

The Earth is home to 8.7 million different species of animals, so it’s not surprising that there are some species you’ve never heard of, even some that seem made up. One such animal is the leaf deer, or leaf muntjac. The leaf deer looks like a typical deer, except that the leaf deer is only about 20 inches tall. The adult male and female leaf deers are nearly identical, with the male sporting a small horn, but both prefer to roam alone, and live in dense woods. Now you know that tiny deer exists, so look where you’re walking next time you’re on a hike.

What is the overall tone of the passage?

• Ironic and wry

• Funny and sarcastic

• Informative and playful

• Reverent and laudatory

Answer explanation

Question 7 Explanation: 

The correct answer is (C). The passage informs readers of a species they likely did not know about, but the last sentence is clearly lighthearted and keeps the tone playful. The paragraph does not come off as reverent or laudatory, as it is not praising the deer or coming from a place of awe about the species. There are no apparent uses of irony or sarcasm, in which the author would express something that is the opposite of what they mean, or would show some sense of bitterness or malice.