Reading Comprehension and Usage—Grade 11 Worksheet

The following text is from Franz Kafka's 1915 novel Metamorphosis: "Gregor then turned to look out the window at the dull weather. Drops of rain could be heard hitting the pane, which made him feel quite sad. 'How about if I sleep a little bit longer and forget all this nonsense,' he thought."

As used in the text, what does the word "dull" most nearly mean?

• Boring

• Smooth

• Pale

• Drab

Answer explanation

"Drab" is the correct answer because it best captures what Kafka means by "dull weather" in this context.

When describing weather as "dull," the word refers to the visual appearance—gray, colorless, and gloomy. This matches perfectly with the rainy scene Kafka depicts: drops hitting the window pane on what's clearly an overcast, dreary day. "Drab" specifically means lacking brightness or color, which is exactly how we'd describe such weather.

Let's see why the other options don't work as well:

• Boring: While dull can mean uninteresting, weather itself isn't "boring"—that's a description of how something affects us mentally, not a physical description of how weather looks.

• Smooth: This describes texture, which makes no sense for weather.

• Pale: This suggests some color is present but faded or light. Dull weather isn't pale—it's gray and colorless, which is what "drab" conveys.

The context clues support "drab" too: the rain, Gregor's sad feeling, and the overall oppressive atmosphere of the scene all point to weather that is gray, colorless, and gloomy—precisely what "drab" means.

Tags

CCSS.L.11-12.4A

CCSS.L.7.4A

CCSS.L.7.5B

CCSS.L.8.4A

CCSS.L.9-10.4A

Chemist Carolyn Bertozzi developed bioorthogonal chemistry, which entails producing chemical reactions inside living organisms through a relatively ______ procedure; the practice facilitates cutting-edge research because it allows scientists to study the impacts of modified molecules without interfering with the normal biological functioning of an organism's cells.

Which choice completes the text with the most logical and precise word or phrase?

• reactive

• benign

• coherent

• injurious

Answer explanation

"Benign" is the correct answer because the context clues strongly indicate that the procedure must be harmless or non-harmful to the organism.

Here are the key context clues:

1. "without interfering with the normal biological functioning of an organism's cells" - This is the most important clue. If the procedure doesn't interfere with normal cell function, it must be harmless or safe.

2. "inside living organisms" - The procedure happens in living organisms, so it needs to be safe enough not to harm them.

3. "allows scientists to study" - For research to be useful, the organism must remain healthy and functioning normally; otherwise, any observations would be compromised by damage from the procedure itself.

The word "benign" means harmless, gentle, or having no significant negative effect—exactly what's needed here.

Why the other options don't work:

• Reactive: This is contradictory. While the chemistry does produce reactions, describing the procedure as "reactive" doesn't make logical sense in this context, and it doesn't connect to the idea of not interfering with cells.

• Coherent: This means logical or consistent, which doesn't relate to whether the procedure harms the organism or not.

• Injurious: This means harmful—the exact opposite of what the context indicates. The procedure must be non-harmful to avoid interfering with normal cell function.

The sentence structure itself sets up a contrast: the procedure is relatively ______, and as a result it doesn't interfere with normal functioning. Only "benign" creates this logical cause-and-effect relationship.

Text 1: "First used to replace sugar during the shortages caused by World War I, artificial sweeteners have since grown tremendously in popularity. Many nutritionists believe that artificial sweeteners can be used to replace sugar in the diet of a person suffering from diabetes, a chronic condition that prevents the body from properly regulating blood sugar levels."

Text 2: "Jotham Suez and a research team conducted a study of about 400 people and found that the subjects who consumed artificial sweeteners had higher blood sugar levels and impaired abilities to tolerate glucose. They also found that the subjects who consumed artificial sweeteners had different populations of bacteria in their guts compared to the subjects who did not, and they posit that artificial sweetener use was responsible for these differences."

Based on the texts, what would Suez and the research team (Text 2) most likely say about the nutritionists' belief in Text 1?

• It is seriously compromised by the findings of their study.

• It probably holds true only under conditions like those in their study.

• It is a compelling idea, though the data collected in their research study is irrelevant to the hypothesis.

• It is largely correct but requires a minor refinement in light of their study's results.

Answer explanation

Suez's research directly contradicts and undermines the nutritionists' belief.

The nutritionists' belief (Text 1): Artificial sweeteners can be used to replace sugar in the diet of people with diabetes (who need to regulate blood sugar levels).

Suez's findings (Text 2):

• People who consumed artificial sweeteners had higher blood sugar levels

• If artificial sweeteners are causing the very problems (elevated blood sugar, poor glucose tolerance) that diabetics are trying to avoid, then the nutritionists' belief that these sweeteners are helpful for diabetics is seriously compromised—meaning significantly weakened or undermined.

Why the other options don't work:

• "It probably holds true only under conditions like those in their study": This suggests the belief is still valid in some contexts. But the study shows artificial sweeteners harm blood sugar regulation, which directly contradicts their proposed benefit for diabetics.

• "It is a compelling idea, though the data collected...is irrelevant": The data is highly relevant—it's specifically about blood sugar levels and glucose tolerance, which are central to diabetes management.

• "It is largely correct but requires a minor refinement": The findings don't suggest a minor refinement; they reveal that artificial sweeteners may actually worsen the exact problems they were supposed to help with. This is a major challenge to the belief, not a minor adjustment.

A now-famous occurrence at the roulette wheel at a casino in Monte Carlo in 1913 has become emblematic of the so-called gambler's fallacy. A roulette wheel has an equal number of red and black spaces, and players can bet on the color on which a ball will land when the wheel is spun. On the night of the incident, the wheel landed on black a surprising 26 times in a row. Bettors lost huge sums of money, based on their mistaken assumption that the wheel was much more likely to break the streak and land on red next. This flawed conception of probability, which fails to consider each independent spin as a discrete event, is the heart of the gambler's fallacy.

Which choice best states the main idea of the text?

• In some situations, the probability of any individual event is not influenced by the probability of the events that preceded it.

• A roulette wheel landing on black 26 times is just as likely as it landing on red 26 times, assuming the wheel has an equal number of red and black spaces.

• The gambler's fallacy is difficult to avoid since it is human nature to assume that a random event that has occurred many times is less likely to occur the next time.

• An event at a Monte Carlo casino is a well-known example of the mistaken understanding of probability called the gambler's fallacy.

Answer explanation

The text's main purpose is to use the Monte Carlo incident as an illustration of the gambler's fallacy. The correct answer captures this relationship perfectly.

Why the other options don't work:

• "In some situations, the probability of any individual event is not influenced...": This is true and mentioned in the text, but it's only the explanation of the gambler's fallacy, not the main idea of the entire passage. The text is primarily about the Monte Carlo example, not just the general principle.

• "A roulette wheel landing on black 26 times is just as likely as it landing on red 26 times...": This is a detail about probability, but the text isn't mainly about comparing these probabilities. It's about the fallacy itself.

• "The gambler's fallacy is difficult to avoid since it is human nature...": The text never discusses why the fallacy is difficult to avoid or mentions "human nature." This introduces ideas not present in the passage.

The main idea of a text should encompass what the whole passage is trying to communicate. This text uses the Monte Carlo incident to exemplify the gambler's fallacy—exactly what the correct answer states.

Tags

CCSS.RI. 9-10.2

CCSS.RI.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.8.2

In his most famous project, French philosopher René Descartes sought certainty by mentally stripping away every layer of knowledge that was remotely possible to doubt. Ultimately, Descartes arrived at his memorable conclusion, "I think, therefore I ______" could only be certain of the fact that he was thinking. Building from there, he could work toward rational certainty in other areas of knowledge.

Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?

• am" he

• am." He

• am," he

• am" and he

Answer explanation

Here's why this is correct:

1. The quotation ends a complete sentence ("I think, therefore I am"), so it needs a period inside the quotation marks.

2. A new sentence begins after the quotation ("He could only be certain..."), so it needs to start with a capital letter (He).

3. The quotation marks close after "am." and before the period, following standard American English convention where periods go inside quotation marks.

Why the other options are wrong:

• "am" he: Missing the period to end the quotation, and "he" should be capitalized since it starts a new sentence.

• "am," he: Uses a comma instead of a period. A comma would only be correct if the sentence continued with a dialogue tag like "he said" or "he thought." But the text continues with "He could only be certain..." which is a separate sentence about Descartes, not a dialogue tag.

• "am" and he: Missing punctuation entirely after "am" and uses "and" which incorrectly suggests the quotation and the following clause are part of the same sentence, when they should be separate sentences.

Tags

CCSS.L.6.2A

CCSS.L.2.2B

CCSS.L.3.2B

CCSS.L.3.2C

CCSS.L.4.2B

Earth has been struck by asteroids in the past, so scientists have launched a probe that will crash into a small asteroid in an effort to measure the effect the impact has on the path of the asteroid. Although the asteroid is small, it is much larger than the one that struck Siberia in 1908, which leveled 2,000 square kilometers of forest, so scientists hope to learn enough to be able to protect Earth from future asteroid impacts.

Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?

• 1908 which

• 1908, which

• 1908 (which

• 1908: which

Answer explanation

"1908 (which" is the correct answer because it properly uses parentheses to set off supplementary information that provides context about the Siberian asteroid event.

Looking at the sentence structure, we can see:

"...the one that struck Siberia _____ leveled 2,000 square kilometers of forest)..."

The phrase "which leveled 2,000 square kilometers of forest" is providing additional detail about the 1908 Siberian asteroid strike. Notice there's already a closing parenthesis after "forest)" in the original text, which tells us this supplementary information needs to be enclosed in parentheses.

Why "1908 (which" is correct:

• The opening parenthesis before "which" pairs with the closing parenthesis after "forest)"

• Parentheses properly set off the entire phrase "(which leveled 2,000 square kilometers of forest)" as extra information

• No comma is needed before the opening parenthesis

Why the other options don't work:

• "1908 which": Missing punctuation to set off the parenthetical information, and there's an unmatched closing parenthesis later

• "1908, which": The comma doesn't match with the closing parenthesis that appears after "forest)"

• "1908: which": A colon is used to introduce lists or explanations, not to begin a parenthetical remark, and it doesn't pair with the closing parenthesis

Tags

CCSS.L.6.2A

CCSS.L.4.2C

The Hohokam people, who lived in the Phoenix Basin in the desert of today's southern Arizona, constructed villages that encompassed several hundred acres with the largest and most extensive irrigation canals in North America. Remarkably permanent in an area known for settlements that relocated after only a few decades, during which the Hohokam successfully grew crops in the same locations and prospered.

Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?

• Hohokam villages were home to their people for 1,500 years or more,

• there was a period of 1,500 years

• 1,500 years was the time

• the Hohokam people lived in these villages for 1,500 years or more,

Answer explanation

The phrase "Remarkably permanent" is a descriptive phrase that needs to modify something. It needs to be followed by an independent clause (a complete sentence with a subject and verb) that this phrase describes.

Why "Hohokam villages were home to their people for 1,500 years or more," works:

• It provides a complete independent clause with a subject ("Hohokam villages") and verb ("were")

• The phrase "Remarkably permanent" logically modifies this clause—the villages being home for 1,500 years demonstrates their permanence

• The comma after "more" properly connects to "during which..." which refers back to that 1,500-year period

• It creates a coherent meaning: The villages were remarkably permanent, lasting 1,500+ years, during which time they grew crops successfully

Why the other options don't work:

• "there was a period of 1,500 years": This is awkward and doesn't create a clear subject for "Remarkably permanent" to modify

• "1,500 years was the time": This is grammatically incomplete and awkward; "the time" for what?

• "the Hohokam people lived in these villages for 1,500 years or more,": This is close but less precise—"Remarkably permanent" more naturally describes the villages themselves rather than the people's act of living

Tags

CCSS.L.11-12.3A

CCSS.L.7.1C

Climate change poses significant threats to the world's water systems. Increased temperatures lead to more evaporation, resulting in less surface water in some areas and increased precipitation in others. The rising temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt, which leads to a rise in sea levels and greater potential for coastal flooding.

Which choice completes the text with the most logical transition?

• For instance,

• Additionally,

• In summary,

• Consequently,

Answer explanation

Additionally is the correct choice because it is listing two consequences for the same thing. It is adding one idea of the same kind to another.

Both sentences describe different consequences of the same cause (increased/rising temperatures). The second sentence is adding another impact of climate change on water systems, not explaining, summarizing, or providing an example of the first.

Why the other options don't work:

• "For instance,": This would mean the ice cap melting is an example of the evaporation/precipitation pattern. But it's not—it's a completely separate phenomenon. Ice caps melting isn't an instance of evaporation affecting surface water.

• "In summary,": This signals you're concluding or restating what's already been said. But the ice cap information is new content, not a summary of the evaporation point.

• "Consequently,": This would mean ice caps melting is a direct result of the evaporation and precipitation changes mentioned in the previous sentence. But that's not the relationship—both are independent effects of rising temperatures, not a chain reaction where one causes the other.

The following text is adapted from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1887 short story "A Study in Scarlet": "Yet his zeal for certain studies was remarkable, and within eccentric limits his knowledge was so extraordinarily ample and minute that his observations have fairly astounded me.... His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. ... My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the solar system."

Which choice best states the function of the underlined sentence in the text as a whole?

• It elaborates on the character trait mentioned in the previous sentence.

• It provides a specific example of the behavior of a character described in the previous sentence.

• It introduces a new setting for the events described in the sentences that follow.

• It establishes a contrast with the character description in the previous sentence.

Answer explanation

The underlined sentence directly contradicts and contrasts with what was just stated.

Previous sentence: "his knowledge was so extraordinarily ample and minute that his observations have fairly astounded me"

• This describes the character's remarkable knowledge

Underlined sentence: "His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge."

• This describes the character's remarkable ignorance

The word "ignorance" is the direct opposite of "knowledge," and the structure of the sentence itself signals contrast by explicitly comparing the two opposite traits ("His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge"). This is a clear contrast or opposition.

Why the other options don't work:

• "It elaborates on the character trait mentioned in the previous sentence": Elaboration means providing more detail about the same trait. But ignorance and knowledge are opposite traits, not the same trait being explained further.

• "It provides a specific example of the behavior...": The underlined sentence makes a general statement about ignorance. The following sentences provide specific examples, but the underlined sentence itself is a general claim, not a specific example.

• "It introduces a new setting...": The sentence doesn't mention any setting or location—it's about a character trait.

The function is to create a contrast: "You'd think this person knows everything, BUT actually, his ignorance is just as remarkable."

Text 1: Historians consider primary sources—original documents, records, and accounts created at the time of interest—to be the best materials to use when researching past events. Secondary sources are created after some time passes and include analyses, interpretations, and retellings.

Text 2: In 1981, anthropologist David Pocock advertised for voluntary correspondents from any occupation who were willing to provide their views on a topic that would be sent to them quarterly. Other than asking his respondents to observe carefully and include as much detail as they wished, Pocock provided no direction, only a general topic. Since then Pocock and his colleagues have archived thousands of responses that include maps, diagrams, and letters of varying lengths.

Based on the texts, how would Pocock and colleagues (Text 2) most likely respond to the view of the historians presented in Text 1?

• By arguing that significant primary sources are difficult to identify before a historic event occurs

• By claiming to be collecting a substantial archive of primary source documents

• By criticizing the prioritization of primary sources over secondary sources

• By describing their archive as a collection of secondary sources

Answer explanation

Pocock's project directly aligns with what Text 1 defines as primary sources.

Text 1's definition of primary sources: "original documents, records, and accounts created at the time of interest"

What Pocock is collecting (Text 2):

• Contemporary accounts from people about their own lives and observations

• Documents created at the time the topics are being experienced

• Original records (letters, maps, diagrams) from the actual people living through events

• First-hand observations with detailed personal perspectives

Pocock's respondents are creating documents as events happen, not analyzing them after the fact. These are exactly the kind of "original documents, records, and accounts created at the time of interest" that Text 1 describes as primary sources.

Why the other options don't work:

• "By arguing that significant primary sources are difficult to identify before a historic event occurs": Nothing in Text 2 suggests Pocock is making this argument. He's simply collecting documents, not discussing the difficulty of identifying them.

• "By criticizing the prioritization of primary sources over secondary sources": Pocock isn't criticizing anything. His project actually supports the value of primary sources by creating an archive of them.

• "By describing their archive as a collection of secondary sources": This is incorrect. The documents are being created by people experiencing events firsthand at the time they occur, which makes them primary sources, not secondary sources (which are "created after some time passes").