Choice C is the best answer. The first paragraph traces the inception of Ethan’s feelings for Mattie: Ethan “had taken to the girl from the first day” (line 4) and saw her as “like the lighting of a fire on a cold hearth” (line 9). The second paragraph (lines 14–34) focuses on “their night walks back to the farm” and Ethan’s elation in perceiving that “one other spirit . . . trembled with the same touch of wonder” that characterized his own (line 21). In other words, the main focus of the first two paragraphs is the intensity of feeling one character, Ethan, has for another, Mattie. The last paragraph shifts the focus of the passage to Ethan’s change in perception; he sees Mattie in a social setting interacting with other men, wonders “how he could have ever thought that his dull talk interested her” (line 37), interprets her seeming happiness as “plain proof of indifference” toward him (line 38), and sees betrayal in the “two or three gestures which, in his fatuity, he had thought she kept for him” (line 40).

Choice A is not the best answer because while Ethan acknowledges that Mattie “don’t look much on housework” (line 8), the first paragraph also notes that Ethan “had taken to the girl from the first day” (line 4), and there is thus no support for the notion that Ethan’s “reservations” about Mattie lasted for any length of time or ever constitute the main focus of the narrative.

Choice B is not the best answer because while Ethan does exhibit ambivalence about his sensitive nature, seeing it as a “mournful privilege” (line 21), the main focus of the narrative does not shift to his recognition of the advantages of having profound emotions. Indeed, in the last paragraph Ethan’s profound emotions give him only grief, as he sees Mattie seemingly rejecting him.

Choice D is not the best answer because while the second paragraph (lines 14–34) does discuss in depth the value Ethan attaches to natural beauty, nothing in the passage signifies that he has rejected natural beauty in favor of human artistry. The closest the passage comes to this is in lines 31–34, in which Mattie is said to have likened a natural scene to a painting.

Choice A is the best answer. The author uses the phrase mainly to introduce a topic discussed at length in the second paragraph (lines 14–34)—namely, the growing connection Ethan sees himself forming with Mattie over the course of many evening walks during which they share similar feelings for the wonders of the natural world. In the context of the passage, the phrase evokes an image of two people walking eagerly and in harmony.

Choice B is not the best answer because while the phrase literally conveys Mattie’s attempts to keep up with Ethan’s pace, the phrase relates to times of leisure during which Ethan and Mattie walked arm-in-arm (see lines 1–4) rather than times of work. Moreover, the phrase is used primarily in a figurative way to suggest shared enthusiasm (see explanation for choice A).

Choice C is not the best answer because while the phrase literally describes Mattie’s attempts to keep up with Ethan’s pace, the context makes clear that Mattie and Ethan are not in competition with each other but rather enjoying times of leisure during which the two walk arm-in-arm (see lines 1–4). The phrase is instead used primarily in a figurative way to suggest shared enthusiasm (see explanation for choice A).

Choice D is not the best answer because while the phrase could in isolation be read as conveying some frustration on the part of Mattie, who had to expend extra effort to keep up with Ethan’s pace, the context makes clear that Mattie is not annoyed with Ethan but is instead enjoying times of leisure during which the two walk arm-in-arm (see lines 1–4). The phrase is instead used to suggest shared enthusiasm (see explanation for choice A).

Choice C is the best answer. Lines 4–8 mention many of Mattie’s traits: she is friendly (“smiled and waved”), eager (“jumped down with her bundles”), easygoing (“she ain’t a fretter”), and energetic (“like the lighting of a fire on a cold hearth”). However, the trait that appeals most to Ethan, as suggested by it being mentioned last in the paragraph, is her openness to the world around her: “She had an eye to see and an ear to hear: he could show her things and tell her things, and taste the bliss of feeling that all he imparted left long reverberations and echoes he could wake at will” (lines 11–13).

Choice A is not the best answer because the passage suggests that Ethan does not actually view Mattie as particularly well suited to farm labor. When first seeing Mattie, Ethan thinks to himself, after “looking over her slight person,” that “she don’t look much on housework” (lines 7–8).

Choice B is not the best answer because the passage suggests that Mattie’s youth is not what Ethan values most about Mattie. Although the passage does note that “the coming to his house of a bit of hopeful young life was like the lighting of a fire on a cold hearth” (lines 8–10), the narrator goes on to note that “the girl was more than the bright serviceable creature [Ethan] had thought her” (lines 10–11), indicating that Ethan values something more in Mattie than simply her vivacity.

Choice D is not the best answer because although Ethan acknowledges that Mattie “ain’t a fretter” (line 8), there is no evidence that Mattie’s freedom from worry is what Ethan values most about Mattie. The first paragraph lists several positive traits that Mattie has, with the most emphasis being placed on her openness to the world around her (see explanation for choice C).

Choice D is the best answer. Lines 11–13 explain that Mattie “had an eye to see and an ear to hear: [Ethan] could show her things and tell her things, and taste the bliss of feeling that all he imparted left long reverberations and echoes he could wake at will.” In other words, Mattie is open, or receptive, to ideas and experiences. These lines thus serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice A is not the best answer because lines 1–4 only describe Ethan and Mattie’s living situation and indicate that Ethan enjoys walking with her in the evenings. They do not indicate which quality of Mattie’s Ethan values most. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice B is not the best answer because lines 4–8 only indicate Ethan’s first impression of Mattie. Mattie comes across as generally friendly and enthusiastic in their first encounter, but it is not these qualities that Ethan values most. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice C is not the best answer because lines 8–10 only convey that there was something special about Mattie beyond her friendliness and enthusiasm. They do not indicate what quality of Mattie’s Ethan values most. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice B is the best answer. Lines 28–30 indicate that “there were other sensations, less definable but more exquisite, which drew [Ethan and Mattie] together with a shock of silent joy: the cold red of sunset behind winter hills, the flight of cloud-flocks over slopes of golden stubble, or the intensely blue shadows of hemlocks on sunlit snow.” In the context of the second paragraph (lines 14–34), which focuses on the connection Ethan and Mattie establish through their shared interest in and sensitivity to nature, the descriptions primarily serve to emphasize the acuteness, or intensity, of the characters’ sensations. According to the passage, Ethan and Mattie do not merely appreciate nature or see it as pretty or calm; rather, they experience a powerful “shock of silent joy” when in the presence of natural beauty.

Choice A is not the best answer because there is no indication that the descriptions are included primarily to emphasize the peacefulness of the natural world. Some readers may see “the cold red of sunset behind winter hills, the flight of cloud-flocks over slopes of golden stubble, or the intensely blue shadows of hemlocks on sunlit snow” (lines 30–32) as evoking a peaceful, harmonious scene. However, Ethan and Mattie do not merely appreciate nature or see it as pretty or calm; rather, they experience a powerful “shock of silent joy” (line 30) when in the presence of natural beauty.

Choice C is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that the descriptions are included primarily to foreshadow Ethan’s and Mattie’s declining fortunes. In fact, there is no evidence in the passage of decline for either character apart from the agitation that Ethan experiences over his relationship with Mattie.

Choice D is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that the descriptions are included primarily to offer a sense of time as fleeting. In fact, the speed at which time passes plays no particular role in the passage.

Choice B is the best answer because details in the third paragraph (lines 20–31) strongly suggest that researchers (“we”) at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that shorter commutes will lead to more productive time for workers. The author notes that “across the country, commuting wastes 4.2 billion hours of work time annually” and that “the overall cost to the U.S. economy is nearly $90 billion when lost productivity and wasted fuel are taken into account” (lines 24–27). Given also that those at the institute “calculate that every minute shaved off America’s commuting time is worth $19.5 billion in value added to the economy” (lines 28–29), it can reasonably be concluded that some of that added value is from heightened worker productivity.

Choice A is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that employees who work from home are more valuable to their employers than employees who commute. Although the passage does criticize long commutes, it does not propose working from home as a solution.

Choice C is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that employees can conduct business activities, such as composing memos or joining conference calls, while commuting. The passage does discuss commuting in some detail, but it does not mention activities that commuters can or should be undertaking while commuting, and it generally portrays commuting time as lost or wasted time.

Choice D is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that employees who have lengthy commutes tend to make more money than employees who have shorter commutes. The passage does not draw any clear links between the amount of money employees make and the commutes they have.

Choice B is the best answer because the context makes clear that the clustering of jobs, innovation, and productivity will be more concentrated in, or more densely packed into, “a smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions” (line 39).

Choice A is not the best answer because although “intense” sometimes means “emotional,” it would make no sense in context to say that the clustering of jobs, innovation, and productivity will be more emotional in “a smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions” (line 39).

Choice C is not the best answer because although “intense” sometimes means “brilliant,” it would make no sense in context to say that the clustering of jobs, innovation, and productivity will be more brilliant in “a smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions” (line 39).

Choice D is not the best answer because although “intense” sometimes means “determined,” it would make no sense in context to say that the clustering of jobs, innovation, and productivity will be more determined in “a smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions” (line 39).

Choice C is the best answer. Higher bars on the graph represent longer annual commute delays than do lower bars; moreover, the number of hours of annual commute delay generally decreases as one moves from left to right on the graph. The bar for Washington, D.C, is higher than and to the left of that for New York City, meaning that D.C. automobile commuters experience greater amounts of delay each year.

Choice A is not the best answer because the graph’s bar for New York City is higher than and to the left of that for the average for very large cities, meaning that New York City automobile commuters experience greater, not lesser, amounts of delay each year.

Choice B is not the best answer because the graph’s bar for Los Angeles is lower than and to the right of that for Washington, D.C., meaning that Los Angeles automobile commuters experience lesser, not greater, amounts of delay each year.

Choice D is not the best answer because the graph’s bar for Detroit is lower than and to the right of those for Houston, Atlanta, and Chicago, meaning that Detroit automobile commuters experience lesser, not greater, amounts of delay each year.

Choice A is the best answer. Jordan helps establish her idealism by declaring that she is an “inquisitor” (line 1) and that her “faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total” (line 2). At numerous points in the passage, Jordan sets forth principles (e.g., “The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive,” in lines 12–14) and makes reference to important documents that do the same, including the U.S. Constitution and Federalist No. 65.

Choice B is not the best answer because although Jordan is advocating a position, there is no evidence in the passage that she is seeking a compromise position. Indeed, she notes that she is “not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution” (lines 3–4), indicating that she is not seeking compromise.

Choice C is not the best answer because Jordan is a participant (“an inquisitor,” line 1) in the proceedings, not a mere observer. Indeed, she notes that she is “not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution” (lines 3–4).

Choice D is not the best answer because Jordan is identified as a congresswoman and (“an inquisitor,” line 1), not a scholar, and because she is primarily discussing events happening at the moment, not researching an unidentified historical controversy. While she refers to historical documents and individuals, her main emphasis is on the (then) present impeachment hearings.

Choice A is the best answer because the quoted phrases — building from “diminution” to “subversion” to “destruction” — suggest the increasing seriousness of the threat Jordan sees to the Constitution.

Choice B is not the best answer because the passage offers no evidence that the quoted phrases refer to three different events that happened in a strict sequence. It is more reasonable to infer from the passage that Jordan sees “diminution,” “subversion,” and “destruction” as differing degrees to which the Constitution could be undermined. Moreover, the passage suggests that Jordan sees these three things as products of the same action or series of actions, not as three distinct stages in a process.

Choice C is not the best answer because the passage offers no evidence that the quoted phrases refer to three distinct ways in which the Constitution is prone to failure. It is more reasonable to infer from the passage that Jordan sees “diminution,” “subversion,” and “destruction” as differing degrees to which the Constitution could be undermined. Moreover, the passage suggests that Jordan sees these three things as products of the same action or series of actions, not as three distinct “ways.”

Choice D is not the best answer because the passage offers no evidence that the quoted phrases refer to three unique elements of a proposal to resolve a crisis. It is more reasonable to infer from the passage that Jordan sees “diminution,” “subversion,” and “destruction” as differing degrees to which the Constitution could be undermined. Moreover, the passage suggests that Jordan sees these three things as products of the same action or series of actions, not as three distinct “parts.”

Choice C is the best answer because the context makes clear that the kind of “exception” (line 25) Jordan describes should be narrowly constrained, or limited. As lines 26–28 indicate, the Federal Convention of 1787 “limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors, and discounted and opposed the term ‘maladministration,’” presumably because the term implied too broad a scope for the exception.

Choice A is not the best answer because while “channeled” sometimes means “worn,” it would make no sense in context to say that the kind of “exception” (line 25) Jordan describes should be narrowly worn.

Choice B is not the best answer because while “channeled” sometimes means “sent,” it would make no sense in context to say that the kind of “exception” (line 25) Jordan describes should be narrowly sent.

Choice D is not the best answer because while “channeled” sometimes means “siphoned,” it would make no sense in context to say that the kind of “exception” (line 25) Jordan describes should be narrowly siphoned.

Choice A is the best answer. Jordan is making a distinction between two types of “parties”: the informal associations to which Alexander Hamilton refers and formal, organized political parties such as the modern-day Republican and Democratic parties. Jordan anticipates that listeners to her speech might misinterpret her use of Hamilton’s quotation as suggesting that she thinks impeachment is essentially a tool of organized political parties to achieve partisan ends, with one party attacking and another defending the president. Throughout the passage and notably in the seventh paragraph (lines 37–42), Jordan makes clear that she thinks impeachment should be reserved only for the most serious of offenses — ones that should rankle people of any political affiliation.

Choice B is not the best answer because Jordan offers no objection to Hamilton’s notion that impeachment proceedings excite passions. Indeed, she quotes Hamilton extensively in a way that indicates that she fundamentally agrees with his view on impeachment. Moreover, she acknowledges that her own speech is impassioned — that she feels a “solemnness” (line 2) and a willingness to indulge in “hyperbole” (line 1).

Choice C is not the best answer because Jordan offers no objection to Hamilton’s level of support for the concept of impeachment. Indeed, she quotes Hamilton extensively in a way that indicates that she fundamentally agrees with his view on impeachment.

Choice D is not the best answer because Jordan suggests that she and her fellow members of Congress are “trying to be big” (line 47), or high- minded, rather than decide the present case on the basis of politics. Indeed, throughout the last four paragraphs of the passage (lines 25–48), she elaborates on the principled, just basis on which impeachment should proceed. Moreover, throughout the passage Jordan is focused on the present impeachment hearings, not on the justice or injustice of impeachments generally.

Choice C is the best answer because in lines 37–39, Jordan draws a contrast between political motivations and “high crime[s] and misdemeanors” as the basis for impeachment and argues that impeachment “must proceed within the confines” of the latter concept. These lines thus serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice A is not the best answer because lines 9–11 only address a misconception that Jordan contends some people have about what a vote for impeachment means. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice B is not the best answer because lines 14–16 only speak to a division of responsibility between the two houses of the U.S. Congress. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice D is not the best answer because lines 44–46 (“Congress...transportation”) serve mainly to indicate that the U.S. Congress has an extensive and important agenda. These lines thus do not serve as the best evidence for the answer to the previous question.

Choice B is the best answer. Passage 1 opens with an explanation of Morgan’s canon and continues with a discussion of people’s expectations regarding animal intelligence. Taken together, the first two paragraphs indicate that despite cautions to the contrary, people still tend to look for humanlike levels of intelligence in many animals, including birds. These two paragraphs provide a framework in which to assess the work of Gray and Hunt, presented in the rest of the passage. The passage’s characterization of the experiment Gray and Hunt conduct, in which they observe a crow’s tool-making ability and to which Gray responds by trying and failing to mimic the bird’s behavior (“I had a go, and I couldn’t do it,” Passage 1, line 25), suggests that Shettleworth, quoted in the second paragraph, is at least partially correct in her assessment that “We somehow want to prove [birds] are as ‘smart’ as people” (Passage 1, lines 5–5).

Choice A is not the best answer because while the reference to Morgan’s canon in the first paragraph offers a sort of historical background (given that the canon was published in 1894), the second paragraph describes people’s continuing expectations regarding animal intelligence. Furthermore, the fact that Gray and Hunt may share with other people the tendency to look for humanlike intelligence in many animals does not by itself establish that the main purpose of the first two paragraphs is to question the uniqueness of Gray and Hunt’s findings.

Choice C is not the best answer because while the reference to Morgan’s canon in the first paragraph does introduce a scientific principle, the discussion in the second paragraph of people’s expectations regarding animal intelligence, as well as the passage’s characterization of Gray and Hunt’s experiment and how the researchers interpret the results, primarily suggest that people tend to violate the canon by attributing humanlike levels of intelligence to many animals.

Choice D is not the best answer because although the first two paragraphs do present different perspectives, they are not seemingly or genuinely contradictory. The second paragraph, particularly the quotation from Shettleworth, serves mainly to qualify (not contradict) the position staked out in the first paragraph by suggesting that while Morgan’s canon is probably a sound principle, people still tend to project humanlike levels of intelligence onto many animals. Moreover, the experiment depicted in the rest of the passage primarily bears out Shettleworth’s claim that “We somehow want to prove [birds] are as ‘smart’ as people” (Passage 1, lines 5–5) and thus does not reconcile the perspectives found in the opening paragraphs.

Choice A is the best answer. The last paragraph of Passage 2 presents the results of an experiment in which the author scattered unfamiliar objects in the path of some ravens. According to the passage, the birds initially “contacted all new objects preferentially” but in “subsequent trials” only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible” (Passage 2, lines 18-24).

Choice B is not the best answer because the ravens studied by the author only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible,” whereas “the inedible objects became ‘background’ items, just like the leaves, grass, and pebbles” (Passage 2, lines 18-24). In other words, plentiful items did not continue to interest the ravens unless the items were edible.

Choice C is not the best answer because the ravens studied by the author only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible,” whereas “the inedible objects became ‘background’ items, just like the leaves, grass, and pebbles, even if they were highly conspicuous” (Passage 2, lines 18-24). In other words, conspicuous items did not continue to interest the ravens unless the items were edible.

Choice D is not the best answer because the ravens studied by the author only preferred those “previously novel items” that “were edible,” whereas “the inedible objects became ‘background’ items, just like the leaves, grass, and pebbles” (Passage 2, lines 18-24). In other words, natural items did not continue to interest the ravens unless the items were edible.

Choice A is the best answer. Both bird species studied modified their behavior in response to changes in their environment. The researchers described in Passage 1 “had gotten wild crows used to finding meat tidbits in holes in a log” (Passage 1, lines 13–14). In other words, the researchers had repeatedly placed meat in the log—that is, changed the crows’ environment—and the birds had responded by modifying their behavior, a point reinforced in Passage 1, line 14, which note that the birds began “checking the log reliably.” The ravens in Passage 2 act in analogous fashion, responding to the introduction of new objects in their environment by “pick[ing] them out at a rate of up to tens of thousands of times greater than background or previously contacted objects” (Passage 2, lines 19–20).

Choice B is not the best answer because while there is some evidence that the ravens described in Passage 2 formed a bond with the author, going on walks with him and possibly viewing him as their “teacher,” there is no evidence that a similar bond formed between the researchers described in Passage 1 and the crows they studied. Indeed, these researchers “hid behind a blind” (Passage 1, line 16) in an effort to avoid contact with their subjects.

Choice C is not the best answer because while crows’ tool manufacture is the central focus of the experiment described in Passage 1, there is no evidence that the ravens in Passage 2 did anything similar. Passage 1 does mention that “some ravens” use “seemingly insightful string-pulling solutions” (Passage 1, line 29), but nothing in Passage 2 suggests that the ravens in that particular study had or displayed tool-making abilities.

Choice D is not the best answer because while there is some evidence that the ravens described in Passage 2 mimicked human behavior, going on walks with the author and possibly viewing him as their “teacher,” there is no evidence that the crows in Passage 1 did any mimicking. Passage 1, in fact, suggests that the ability of the crow to produce the meat-fishing tool was innate rather than a skill it had acquired from either humans or other birds.