TOEFL TEST

0

READING SECTION

This test measures your ability to use English in an academic context. There are 4 sections.

In the Reading section, you will read two passages and answer questions about them.

In the Listening section, you will hear several conversations and lectures and answer questions about them.

In the Speaking section, you will answer 6 questions. Some of the questions ask you to speak about your own experience. Other questions ask you to speak about lectures and reading passages.

In the Writing section you will answer 2 questions. The first question asks you to write about the relationship between a lecture you will hear and a passage you will read. The second questions asks you to write an essay about a topic of general based on your experience.

There will be directions for each section which explain how to answer the questions in that section.

You should work quickly but carefully on the Reading and Listening questions. Some questions are more difficult than others, but try to answer every one to the best of your ability. If you are not sure of the answer to a question, make the best guess that you can. The questions that you answer by speaking and writing are each separately timed. Try to answer every one of these as completely as possible in the time allowed.

The number of attempts remaining is 1

1 / 22

Name

2 / 22

E-mail

3 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

Examine the four in the selection below and indicate at which block the following sentence could be inserted into the passage:

Her data appeared to demonstrate that an average-sized moai could be moved approximately 10 kilometers in 4.7 days with a team of 70 people.

One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. [A] Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling the statues was the most efficient method. [B] As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. [C] They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. [D]

4 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

Why does the author mention "sophisticated computer models" developed by Jo Anne Van Tilburg in paragraph 3?

5 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

The word 'they' in paragraph 2 refers to...

6 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

In paragraph 2, what does the author say about past theories of how the moai were transported from quarries to their places?

7 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

Which of the folloewing best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence?

Incorrect answer choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.

While the very creation of such monoliths - most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels - is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places.

8 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Complete the summary by selecting the THREE answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas in the passage. This question is worth 2 points.

Choose 3 correct answer.

9 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

Which of the following methods of transportation does the author say is supported by the most compelling evidence?

10 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

The word 'abandoned' in paragraph 5 is closest in meaning to...

11 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

What can be inferred from paragraphs 5 about the statues found at their eventual resting places?

12 / 22

[1] In the southeastern Pacific Ocean, on the piece of land known as Easter Island (now a territory of Chile), stand several hundred massive stone monoliths. These carvings, called “moai,” are recognizable by their oversized heads, heavy brows, long noses, elongated ears, and protruding lips. While they average four meters in height and 12.5 tonnes, the largest is almost 10 meters tall, and the heaviest weighs 86 tons. The upright sculptures are scattered around Easter Island, many installed on platforms called “ahu” along the coast, while others are more inland, and several stand near the main volcanic quarry of Rano Raraku. The Rapa Nui people of the island built a total of 887 of these impressive statues between the 12th and 16th centuries. They were, it is said, symbols of religious and political authority, embodiments of powerful chiefs or ancestors who faced inland toward the island’s villages, perhaps watching over their creators, keeping them safe.

[2] While the very creation of such monoliths – most out of volcanic ash with stone hand chisels – is an impressive feat, what is more remarkable (not to mention mysterious) is how they were transported to their resting places. In the past, most researchers associated the building and transportation of the moai with widespread deforestation on the island and the eventual collapse of the Rapa Nui civilization. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the pollen record suddenly disappeared at the same time as the Rapa Nui people stopped constructing the moai and transporting them with the help of wooden logs. How exactly would logs facilitate the movement of the statues? Most proponents of this method believe that the people created “rollers” by arranging parallel logs on which the prone statues were pulled or pushed. They would not have required an entire roadway of logs since logs from the back could be placed at the front, creating a moving platform of sorts. To make it easier to roll, and keep in position, the statue would be placed on two logs arranged in a V shape.

[3] One proponent of this idea of rolling the statues in a prone position is Jo Anne Van Tilburg, of UCLA. Van Tilburg created sophisticated computer models that took into account available materials, routes, rock, and manpower, even factoring in how much the workers would have to have eaten. Her models supported the idea that rolling prone statues was the most efficient method. As further evidence, Van Tilburg oversaw the movement of a moai replica by the method she had proposed. They were successful, but evidence that it was possible is not necessarily evidence that it actually happened. Van Tilburg was not the only one to have experimented with rolling the statues. In the 1980s, archaeologist Charles Love experimented with rolling the moai in an upright position, rather than prone, on two wooden runners. Indeed, a team of just 25 men was able to move the statue a distance of 150 feet in a mere two minutes. However, the route from the stone quarries where the statues were built to the coast where they were installed was often uneven, and Love’s experiments were hampered by the tendency of the statues to tip over. While Love’s ideas were dismissed by many, the idea of the statutes tipping over along the route was consistent with the many moai found on their sides or faces beside the island’s ancient roads. Local legend held that the statues “walked” to their destinations, which would seem to support an upright mode of transportation. In fact, rolling was not the only possible way of transporting the moai in an upright position.

[4] In the 1980s, Pavel Pavel and Thor Heyerdahl had experimented with swiveling the statues forward. With one rope tied around the head and another around the base, they were able to move a five-ton moai with only eight people, and a nine-ton statue with 16. However, they abandoned their efforts when their technique proved too damaging; as they shuffled the statues forward, the bases were chipped away. This confounding factor led most to believe that an upright, rope-assisted walking method was incorrect.

[5] But many now believe that they were, in fact, transported upright. In 2012, Carl Lipo of California State University Long Beach and Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii teamed up with archaeologist Sergio Rapu to refine the upright walking idea. They found that the statues that appeared to be abandoned in transit had bases with a curved front edge. This meant they would naturally topple forward and need to be modified once they reached their destinations. But that curved edge also meant they could easily be rocked forward using a small team of people and three ropes attached to the head. Indeed, their experiments demonstrated the feasibility of this method, and their theory has gained traction.

In paragraphs 3, what does the author NOT suggest about Jo Anne Van Tilburg's hypothesis concerning the method of transporting the moai?

13 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

According to the author, which of the following was most critical in the development of intensive agriculture?

14 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

Which of the following can be inferred form the information in paragrph 4?

15 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

The word 'them' in paragraph 4 refers to...

16 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

Examine the four in the selection below and indicate at which block the following sentence could be inserted into the passage:

Early farming came about as people observed and experimented with plan reproduction.

Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants that were deemed healthy and delicious, and avoiding those that were not. [A] Early agriculture was restrictied to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. [B] Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, and bitter vetch, as well as the multi-purpose flax plant. [C] Together, these eight plant species are known as the Noelithic founder crops or primary domesticates. [D]

17 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

Which of the following best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence?
Incorrect answer choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.

But while we often call it a "revolution," it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proporsition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity.

18 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Complete the summary by selecting the THREE answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas in the passage. This question is worth 2 points.

choose 3 correct answer

19 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

All of the following are mentioned as negative impacts of the Neolithic revolution EXCEPT that ...

20 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

The word 'heralded' in paragraph 7 is closest in meaning to...

21 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

The primary purpose of paragraph 7 is to...

22 / 22

Stone Age Agriculture

      [1] While the use of stone tools began 2.5 million years ago, it wasn’t until about 10,000 BCE that Homo sapiens applied these tools to the deliberate cultivation of plants and animals. The adoption of sustained agriculture – what anthropologists call the “Neolithic revolution” – signifies an important turning point in the development of human societies, as it led directly to population growth, permanent or semi-permanent settlement, as well as technological and social development.

[2] Neolithic agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world, beginning with the Levant and Mesopotamia, followed by Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. But while we often call it a “revolution,” it would be a mistake to believe that agriculture was a sudden and complete development, an all or nothing proposition that societies adopted wholesale at the first opportunity. Instead, it developed slowly, beginning as a supplement to more traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles in which people relied on plants and animals gathered or hunted in their natural environment. Over time, as people learned more about and relied more greatly on domesticated plants and animals, they settled more permanently and cultivated the land more intensively.

[3] Neolithic farmers collected and planted seeds that they learned would produce palatable grains, selectively breeding plants deemed healthy and delicious and avoiding those not. Early agriculture was restricted to a limited number of plants, namely Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, and barley. Later, people learned to cultivate pulses, including lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and the multi-purpose flax plant. These eight plant species are known as the Neolithic founder crops or primary domesticates.

[4] People’s success in planting, cultivating, and harvesting these plants came about as a result not only of their increased knowledge of the plants themselves but also of the conditions for growth. They explored innovative irrigation techniques, which enabled even greater production and, eventually, food surpluses. Of course, food surpluses are useless unless people have the ability and facilities to store them , which people did in granaries. And food surpluses, in turn, enabled a host of other social developments, like occupational specialization (since not everyone had to be involved in food production), trade, and social stratification.

[5] These advances in agriculture went hand in hand with technological development. People fashioned stone tools such as hoes for working soil, sickle blades for harvesting crops, and grinding stones for processing grains. However, the polished stone axe was more important than such agricultural implements, which allowed the Neolithic farmers to clear forests on a large scale and open up new lands for cultivation. Along with the adze, the axe also enabled them to work the trees they felled into wood that was usable for building shelters and other structures.

[6] Besides cultivating plants, these stone-age farmers also domesticated animals. At first, it was sheep, goats, and dogs whose temperament, diet, and mating patterns made them good candidates for domestication. Later, cows and pigs were added to the mix. Besides meat, these animals provided people with milk (a renewable source of protein), leather, wool, and fertilizer. Cows became valued for their labor, as they assisted with plowing and towing, and dogs provided protection (not only to humans but also to their crops and livestock) as well as companionship.

[7] That agriculture enabled hitherto unknown population growth is undeniable. Food surpluses and an agricultural lifestyle brought security and safety that nomadic hunter-gatherers did not enjoy. And it may be argued that the subsequent advances in all realms of society – not only the aforementioned technology but also knowledge, art, writing, and astronomy – would not have emerged without a sedentary lifestyle. But the impact of the Neolithic revolution, often heralded as a giant step forward for humankind, was not all positive.

[8] Sedentary agriculture narrowed the diet of Neolithic peoples: they consumed greater amounts of starch and plant protein and fewer types of food overall. An increasing number of researchers claim that human nutrition worsened with the Neolithic revolution. In addition, the disease increased as humans lived in closer contact with each other and with domesticated animals; sanitation didn’t advance quite as quickly as agricultural methods. It also turns out that agriculture required significantly more labor than hunting and gathering. The combined result of these facts was a life expectancy that was most likely shorter than that of the apparently more primitive hunter-gatherers.

According to the paragraph 6, which of the following is true about domesticated animals?

Your score is

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter VKontakte

2

LISTENING SECTION

In this section, you will be able to demonstrate your ability to understand conversations and lectures
in English. Answer the questions based on what is stated or implied by the speakers.
In the actual test, the Listening section is divided into two separately timed parts, and you can listen
to each conversation and lecture only one time. You must answer each question and you cannot
return to previous questions. A clock will indicate how much time is remaining. The clock will count
down only while you are answering questions, not while you are listening.
For this practice test, a useful guideline is to spend no more than 35 seconds to answer a question.
You can review the correct answer for each question by reviewing the answer key at the end of the
section.

The number of attempts remaining is 1

1 / 7

Name

2 / 7

E-mail

3 / 7

Why does the man go to see the professor?

4 / 7

How did the man learn about Dean Adams’ retirement?

5 / 7

Why does the professor refuse the man’s offer to help with a party? [Choose 2 answers.]

6 / 7

Why does the professor talk about speciation?

7 / 7

Part of the conversation is repeated below. Read it and answer the question.

Why does the professor say this:
I hesitate to mention it, but I don’t suppose this is something you would...

Your score is

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter VKontakte

2

WRITING SECTION

You'll have 3 minutes to read a passage. After reading, you'll listen to a lecture regarding the same topic you just read. Finally, you'll have 20 minutes to write a response to a question that asks you about the relationship between the lecture you heard and the reading passage. Try to answer the question using information from the reading passage and the lecture.

Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.

We recommend you practice taking notes with a pen and paper like you will during your TOEFL exam.

You can use the full screen mode by pressing the icon in the top right-corner of the quiz box.

The number of attempts remaining is 1

Name

E-mail

In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the number of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by that decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to “shine,” to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognize but recognized as highly significant, because a team’s overall results can be more far reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.

 

Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on the points made in the reading passage.

 

You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter VKontakte

1

SPEAKING SECTION

You'll speak about a familiar topic. Your response will be scored on your ability to speak clearly and coherently about the topics. You'll read a short passage and then listen to a talk on the same topic. You will then answer a question using information from both the reading passage and the talk.

You'll have 30 seconds to prepare your answer and 60 seconds to speak.

You can use the full screen mode by pressing the icon in the top right-corner of the quiz box.

The number of attempts remaining is 1

1 / 3

Name

2 / 3

E-mail

City University is planning to increase tuition and fees.
Read the announcement about the increase from the president of City University.
You will have 45 seconds to read the announcement.
Begin reading now.

 

Announcement from the President

The university has decided to increase tuition and fees for all students by approximately 8% next semester. For the past 5 years, the tuition and fees have remained the same, but it is necessary to increase them now for several reasons. The university has many more students than we had 5 years ago, and we must hire additional professors to teach these students. We have also made a new commitment to research and technology and will be renovating and upgrading our laboratory facilities to better meet our students’ needs.

3 / 3

Please, pay attention for the time! After timer finished count downing, quiz will be submitted automatically.

Now you only have 60 seconds to recording your voice.

Please click link below then start to recording.

https://vocaroo.com/

After finishing your recording, you can stop and copy the URL in the box below.

Your score is

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter VKontakte