Germs, Germs, Everywhere (passage 1)

The author’s opening lines (“I saw a

television...sterilize the air itself”)

capture the audience’s attention by

• presenting a startling claim

• alluding to a hypothetical

• highlighting a shocking statistic

• narrating a personal anecdote

• underscoring a similarity with

  readers

In paragraph 3, the author sets off the phrase “and, usually, utterly benignly” with em dashes (—) primarily to

• qualify her earlier claim that bacteria is not a threat in the average household

• allude to forthcoming research introduced in future paragraphs regarding the usefulness of antibacterial products

• introduce the claim that food poisoning is the only serious bacterial threat in the average household

• clarify that consumers are at fault for spreading hysteria about bacterial threats

• define the terms that precede the phrase set between the em dashes

The author contrasts “bacteria” and “viruses” in paragraphs 5 and 6 primarily to

• emphasize that the market of new antibacterial products is not rooted in science

• highlight the lack of research behind the spread of bacteria on surfaces

• associate both terms with a symbolic representation of “uncleanliness”

• concede that viruses do pose a minimal health risk

• demonstrate her credibility as a “casual student of microbiology”

“The issue” in the seventh paragraph

refers to

• the effectiveness of disinfecting surfaces with antibacterial products

• the differences between bacteria and viruses

• survival rates of viral particles in different environments

• the amount of germs needed to overwhelm the immune system

• the irrational fears that come because of a headline

Tags

CCSS.RI. 9-10.2

CCSS.RI.11-12.2

CCSS.RI.8.2

CCSS.RL.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.9-10.2

The author views “antigerm wipes” (paragraph 9) as a product that

• aid in “wiping events” which are effective health measures for common bacteria

• continues to develop as more research is being funded to create the most effective products

• is a product rooted in societal fear and misunderstandings about germs

• kills viruses but not bacteria in the common household

• are marketed as particularly vague in their function and effectiveness

The tenth paragraph, the author’s use of quotation marks around “wiping events” (paragraph 10) primarily serves to

• cite evidence published by cleanser market researchers in support of their products

• mock the rhetoric of cleanser market researchers

• emphasize the degree to which cleaning actions influence health

• signal a shift from discussing the common cleaners’ effectiveness to researched and tested products

• remind readers of the author’s background in science and biology

The author of the passage is best

described as

• a satirical journalist specializing in

  household threats

• an informed critic of antibacterial

  products driven by consumers'

  irrational fears

• a cynic of the upper class who

  separate themselves from the

  “unwashed masses”

• a critical observer of “wiping

  events”

• an inspired educator of bacteria and

  viruses

Tags

CCSS.RI. 9-10.6

CCSS.RI.11-12.6

CCSS.RI.8.6

CCSS.RL.11-12.6

CCSS.RL.9-10.6

In paragraph 12, the author’s choice to

compare “cooties” to “viruses or

bacteria” is meant to

• mock readers’ irrational fear of

  household germs

• emphasize the progress in scientific

  research

• minimize the threat of bacteria

  compared to viruses

• shift from discussing harmless

  threats to legitimate concerns

• emphasize the contrast between

  consumers and scientists

Which of the following best describes

the effect of rhetorical questions in

paragraph 12?

• parallel the thought process of a

  scientist and researcher

• exemplify the ambiguity of the word

  “germ”

• rebut the accepted definition of the

  word “germ”

• stimulate the readers’ reflection

  about their own understanding of

  “germs”

• imply that further research, and thus

  additional funding, is needed

The author mentions “Howard Hughes”

and “Donald Trump” in paragraph 13

primarily to

• insinuate that the extravagantly rich

  perpetuate the fear of germs because

  of their public platform

• encourage the extravagantly rich to

  provide funding for more research

  on the spread of viruses and bacteria

  in the household

• provide an example of the

  extravagantly rich public

  germaphobes who perpetuate the

  irrational fear of contamination

• concede that household

  contamination can affect people

  from various backgrounds,

  including those who are extremely

  wealthy and powerful

• draw a contrast between the

  cleaning products of the

  extravagantly rich and everyone else