Which detail best supports the inference that Americans are remaining steadfast in their pursuit of consumerism?
adapted from Prerecession Trends
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Leading up to the 2007–2009 recession, consumer spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product had risen for 40 years. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) growth also outpaced general economic expansion. Consumers bought increasingly more services, and the composition of PCE shifted over time with rising in-kind social benefits and third-party contributions towards health insurance and workers' compensation. As a result, the percentage of PCE stemming from direct household expenditures declined from 84.5 percent in 1960 to 67.6 percent in 2006.
The late 1990s saw a surge in spending as Americans bought new technology and globalization ushered in less expensive imports. Economic growth, rising home values and equity, easy credit, and declining personal savings rates also prompted higher consumer spending. In addition, baby boomers reached their highest earning years. The 2001 recession briefly tempered consumer spending, but growth rates rose again as Americans spent more on durable household items, new technology, and vehicles as the housing bubble peaked in 2005.
16 answers
The detail that best supports the inference that Americans are remaining steadfast in their pursuit of consumerism is "rising home values and equity, easy credit, and declining personal savings rates also prompted higher consumer spending." This detail shows that even during economic downturns like the 2001 recession, Americans continued to spend on consumer goods and services, indicating a strong commitment to consumerism.
Which sentence best explains Lincoln’s wartime decisions?
adapted from Lincoln the Great
by Wilfred W. McClay
We should remember too that, with events controlling him, Lincoln had to do things as president that he was not equipped to do, either by experience or temperament. He had not only opposed the aggression of the Mexican War but was something of an antimilitarist1 who abhorred1 violence. How then to account for the fact that he became such a remarkably effective war leader, indeed the quintessential2 war president—the only president in our history whose entire term of office was defined by the conditions of war, and the employer and enabler of such legendarily destructive warriors as Grant and Sherman? It is surely one of the many mysteries about this man.
He also excelled in understanding the larger political dimensions of the war, in riding the flow of events and changing Northern public opinion with a consummate3 sense of timing. He understood the importance of isolating and containing the South, keeping the border states out of the Confederacy and European mischief-makers out of the struggle. He gradually and deftly4 redefined the war as an unlimited, total struggle to overthrow the South’s political system, and pushed his military leaders toward a strategy of unconditional surrender that was appropriate to the war’s changing objectives. Such maneuvering helps us appreciate why Lincoln at first so actively suppressed the idea that the war was to be a war for emancipation, to the extent of countermanding5 John C. Frémont’s Missouri Emancipation Proclamation in 1861. It helps us appreciate the mixture of genuine moral idealism and shrewd military calculation that lay behind Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, a document that is often unfairly disparaged6 on the grounds that it refrained from abolishing slavery and technically freed almost no one.
Which brings us to the question of Lincoln’s halfway measures, whose fuller context we need to remember. He rose to prominence as a politician who was antislavery but also anti-abolitionist. The strategy he preferred would have contained the spread of slavery, then gradually eliminated it—as opposed to overturning the institution in one grand liberatory7 gesture. Such a position perhaps seems incoherent now, and it failed in the end, since the South concluded that it could not trust President Lincoln, who received not a single electoral vote from the South, to protect its “peculiar institution.” But it was a position predicated on Lincoln’s belief that the maintenance of the Union was the key to all other political goods.
________________________
adapted from Lincoln the Great
by Wilfred W. McClay
We should remember too that, with events controlling him, Lincoln had to do things as president that he was not equipped to do, either by experience or temperament. He had not only opposed the aggression of the Mexican War but was something of an antimilitarist1 who abhorred1 violence. How then to account for the fact that he became such a remarkably effective war leader, indeed the quintessential2 war president—the only president in our history whose entire term of office was defined by the conditions of war, and the employer and enabler of such legendarily destructive warriors as Grant and Sherman? It is surely one of the many mysteries about this man.
He also excelled in understanding the larger political dimensions of the war, in riding the flow of events and changing Northern public opinion with a consummate3 sense of timing. He understood the importance of isolating and containing the South, keeping the border states out of the Confederacy and European mischief-makers out of the struggle. He gradually and deftly4 redefined the war as an unlimited, total struggle to overthrow the South’s political system, and pushed his military leaders toward a strategy of unconditional surrender that was appropriate to the war’s changing objectives. Such maneuvering helps us appreciate why Lincoln at first so actively suppressed the idea that the war was to be a war for emancipation, to the extent of countermanding5 John C. Frémont’s Missouri Emancipation Proclamation in 1861. It helps us appreciate the mixture of genuine moral idealism and shrewd military calculation that lay behind Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, a document that is often unfairly disparaged6 on the grounds that it refrained from abolishing slavery and technically freed almost no one.
Which brings us to the question of Lincoln’s halfway measures, whose fuller context we need to remember. He rose to prominence as a politician who was antislavery but also anti-abolitionist. The strategy he preferred would have contained the spread of slavery, then gradually eliminated it—as opposed to overturning the institution in one grand liberatory7 gesture. Such a position perhaps seems incoherent now, and it failed in the end, since the South concluded that it could not trust President Lincoln, who received not a single electoral vote from the South, to protect its “peculiar institution.” But it was a position predicated on Lincoln’s belief that the maintenance of the Union was the key to all other political goods.
________________________
The sentence that best explains Lincoln's wartime decisions is: "He gradually and deftly redefined the war as an unlimited, total struggle to overthrow the South’s political system, and pushed his military leaders toward a strategy of unconditional surrender that was appropriate to the war’s changing objectives." This sentence explains how Lincoln strategically shifted the focus of the war towards the goal of completely overthrowing the South's political system, which influenced his decisions and actions as a war leader.
Resting on a shallow sandbar not far from where the Bayou Texar drains into Pensacola Bay, are two of Florida's oldest shipwrecks. Archaeologists refer to them, for the site of their discovery, as Emanuel Point 1 and 2. The first is something big—a store ship or galleon measuring eighty to one hundred feet in length. The second is about half that size, its class unknown. Both, the evidence suggests, were part of an eleven-ship fleet commanded by Tristán de Luna y Arellano, a wealthy and well-regarded member of the Spanish gentry, charged by King Philip II with colonizing the territory then known as La Florida. And both ships, it seems, were forced violently aground on the same night in 1559, victims of a hurricane that, despite the protective cover of the bay, scuttled eight of Luna's ships and, with them, any chance of his mission's success.
Della Scott-Ireton, an underwater archaeologist with the Florida Public Archaeology Network, was a member of the state survey team that, in 1992, discovered the larger of the two ships. "I remember that day," she says. "We ran over something, and the mag"—that is, the magnetometer, essentially, an underwater metal detector—"went off the scale, it defaulted, we'd run over something so big on the bottom."
The team started diving at the site a few weeks later, doing circle searches and, once they had identified the location of the ship's stone ballast load, digging carefully through the sediment with induction dredges and hand tools. "There were a lot of ceramics," she says of their findings, "a lot of storage jars that they would have carried everything from wine to water to foodstuffs in; and the remains of foodstuffs, butchered-cow bones, and pig and chicken bones. On the second ship, they've found part of a cat skull—probably the ship's cat. We've also found evidence of 'stowaways': black rats and cockroaches. Their pests came along with them," she laughs.
Spain's fourth attempt to establish a permanent settlement in Florida—and the only one from which any shipwrecks have been discovered—the Luna project had three goals: convert the natives to Catholicism, create a safe harbor for vessels sailing from New Spain, and, perhaps most important, secure the crown's latest land acquisition against French incursions1. Toward those ends, five hundred and forty soldiers and more than one thousand civilians, women and children among them, brought "all of the materials and equipment that you would need to build a Spanish town at what was then very much the edge of the empire," says Scott-Ireton. "It was one of the best-funded, best-supplied, best-equipped, best-planned expeditions of the time."
What can the reader infer about the importance the discovery of the shipwrecks has to archaeologists?
A.
The artifacts from the shipwrecks contain a treasure trove of precious metals and materials intended for trade in Florida.
B.
The discovery of the shipwrecks represents the only evidence of Spain’s several attempts to establish a permanent residence in Florida.
C.
The artifacts from the shipwrecks clarify the motives Spain had for its competition with France for land in Florida.
D.
The discovery of the shipwrecks uncovers the reasons for Spain’s failure to colonize Florida.
Della Scott-Ireton, an underwater archaeologist with the Florida Public Archaeology Network, was a member of the state survey team that, in 1992, discovered the larger of the two ships. "I remember that day," she says. "We ran over something, and the mag"—that is, the magnetometer, essentially, an underwater metal detector—"went off the scale, it defaulted, we'd run over something so big on the bottom."
The team started diving at the site a few weeks later, doing circle searches and, once they had identified the location of the ship's stone ballast load, digging carefully through the sediment with induction dredges and hand tools. "There were a lot of ceramics," she says of their findings, "a lot of storage jars that they would have carried everything from wine to water to foodstuffs in; and the remains of foodstuffs, butchered-cow bones, and pig and chicken bones. On the second ship, they've found part of a cat skull—probably the ship's cat. We've also found evidence of 'stowaways': black rats and cockroaches. Their pests came along with them," she laughs.
Spain's fourth attempt to establish a permanent settlement in Florida—and the only one from which any shipwrecks have been discovered—the Luna project had three goals: convert the natives to Catholicism, create a safe harbor for vessels sailing from New Spain, and, perhaps most important, secure the crown's latest land acquisition against French incursions1. Toward those ends, five hundred and forty soldiers and more than one thousand civilians, women and children among them, brought "all of the materials and equipment that you would need to build a Spanish town at what was then very much the edge of the empire," says Scott-Ireton. "It was one of the best-funded, best-supplied, best-equipped, best-planned expeditions of the time."
What can the reader infer about the importance the discovery of the shipwrecks has to archaeologists?
A.
The artifacts from the shipwrecks contain a treasure trove of precious metals and materials intended for trade in Florida.
B.
The discovery of the shipwrecks represents the only evidence of Spain’s several attempts to establish a permanent residence in Florida.
C.
The artifacts from the shipwrecks clarify the motives Spain had for its competition with France for land in Florida.
D.
The discovery of the shipwrecks uncovers the reasons for Spain’s failure to colonize Florida.
Based on the information provided, the reader can infer that the statement "The discovery of the shipwrecks uncovers the reasons for Spain’s failure to colonize Florida" best reflects the importance the discovery of the shipwrecks has to archaeologists. The passage mentions that the shipwrecks were part of Spain's attempt to establish a permanent settlement in Florida and that the violent destruction of the ships by a hurricane ultimately led to the failure of the mission. Studying the artifacts from the shipwrecks can provide insight into the events and factors that contributed to Spain's unsuccessful colonization efforts.
We should remember too that, with events controlling him, Lincoln had to do things as president that he was not equipped to do, either by experience or temperament. He had not only opposed the aggression of the Mexican War but was something of an antimilitarist1 who abhorred1 violence. How then to account for the fact that he became such a remarkably effective war leader, indeed the quintessential2 war president—the only president in our history whose entire term of office was defined by the conditions of war, and the employer and enabler of such legendarily destructive warriors as Grant and Sherman? It is surely one of the many mysteries about this man.
He also excelled in understanding the larger political dimensions of the war, in riding the flow of events and changing Northern public opinion with a consummate3 sense of timing. He understood the importance of isolating and containing the South, keeping the border states out of the Confederacy and European mischief-makers out of the struggle. He gradually and deftly4 redefined the war as an unlimited, total struggle to overthrow the South’s political system, and pushed his military leaders toward a strategy of unconditional surrender that was appropriate to the war’s changing objectives. Such maneuvering helps us appreciate why Lincoln at first so actively suppressed the idea that the war was to be a war for emancipation, to the extent of countermanding5 John C. Frémont’s Missouri Emancipation Proclamation in 1861. It helps us appreciate the mixture of genuine moral idealism and shrewd military calculation that lay behind Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, a document that is often unfairly disparaged6 on the grounds that it refrained from abolishing slavery and technically freed almost no one.
Which brings us to the question of Lincoln’s halfway measures, whose fuller context we need to remember. He rose to prominence as a politician who was antislavery but also anti-abolitionist. The strategy he preferred would have contained the spread of slavery, then gradually eliminated it—as opposed to overturning the institution in one grand liberatory7 gesture. Such a position perhaps seems incoherent now, and it failed in the end, since the South concluded that it could not trust President Lincoln, who received not a single electoral vote from the South, to protect its “peculiar institution.” But it was a position predicated on Lincoln’s belief that the maintenance of the Union was the key to all other political goods.
Which evidence supports the writer’s claim that Lincoln was “the quintessential war president”?
A.
He manipulated Northern opinion.
B.
He did not believe in violence or military solutions to political problems.
C.
He issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
D.
He understood the larger political dimensions of the war.
He also excelled in understanding the larger political dimensions of the war, in riding the flow of events and changing Northern public opinion with a consummate3 sense of timing. He understood the importance of isolating and containing the South, keeping the border states out of the Confederacy and European mischief-makers out of the struggle. He gradually and deftly4 redefined the war as an unlimited, total struggle to overthrow the South’s political system, and pushed his military leaders toward a strategy of unconditional surrender that was appropriate to the war’s changing objectives. Such maneuvering helps us appreciate why Lincoln at first so actively suppressed the idea that the war was to be a war for emancipation, to the extent of countermanding5 John C. Frémont’s Missouri Emancipation Proclamation in 1861. It helps us appreciate the mixture of genuine moral idealism and shrewd military calculation that lay behind Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, a document that is often unfairly disparaged6 on the grounds that it refrained from abolishing slavery and technically freed almost no one.
Which brings us to the question of Lincoln’s halfway measures, whose fuller context we need to remember. He rose to prominence as a politician who was antislavery but also anti-abolitionist. The strategy he preferred would have contained the spread of slavery, then gradually eliminated it—as opposed to overturning the institution in one grand liberatory7 gesture. Such a position perhaps seems incoherent now, and it failed in the end, since the South concluded that it could not trust President Lincoln, who received not a single electoral vote from the South, to protect its “peculiar institution.” But it was a position predicated on Lincoln’s belief that the maintenance of the Union was the key to all other political goods.
Which evidence supports the writer’s claim that Lincoln was “the quintessential war president”?
A.
He manipulated Northern opinion.
B.
He did not believe in violence or military solutions to political problems.
C.
He issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
D.
He understood the larger political dimensions of the war.
The evidence that supports the writer's claim that Lincoln was "the quintessential war president" is: "He understood the larger political dimensions of the war." This evidence shows that Lincoln had a comprehensive understanding of the political aspects of the war, which is a crucial characteristic of a war president. Understanding the larger political dimensions would have allowed Lincoln to make strategic decisions and maneuvers, contributing to his effectiveness as a leader during the Civil War.
Which line from the poem best supports the inference that the narrator wishes to be buried in the coat?
Béranger's "To My Old Coat"
by Eugene Field
Still serve me in my age, I pray,
As in my youth, O faithful one;
For years I've brushed thee every day—
Could Socrates have better done?
5 What though the fates would wreak on thee
The fulness of their evil art?
Use thou philosophy, like me—
And we, old friend, shall never part!
I think—I often think of it—
10 The day we twain first faced the crowd;
My roistering friends impeached your fit,
But you and I were very proud!
Those jovial friends no more make free
With us (no longer new and smart),
15 But rather welcome you and me
As loving friends that should not part.
The patch? Oh, yes—one happy night—
"Lisette," says I, "it's time to go"—
20 She clutched this sleeve to stay my flight,
Shrieking: "What! leave so early? No!"
To mend the ghastly rent she'd made,
Three days she toiled, dear patient heart!
And I—right willingly I staid—
Lisette decreed we should not part!
25 No incense ever yet profaned
This honest, shiny warp of thine,
Nor hath a courtier's eye disdained
Thy faded hue and quaint design;
30 Let servile flattery be the price
Of ribbons in the royal mart—
A roadside posie shall suffice
For us two friends that must not part!
Fear not the recklessness of yore
Shall re-occur to vex thee now;
35 Alas, I am a youth no more—
I'm old and sere, and so art thou!
So bide with me unto the last
And with thy warmth caress this heart
That pleads, by memories of the Past,
40 That two such friends should never part!
Béranger's "To My Old Coat"
by Eugene Field
Still serve me in my age, I pray,
As in my youth, O faithful one;
For years I've brushed thee every day—
Could Socrates have better done?
5 What though the fates would wreak on thee
The fulness of their evil art?
Use thou philosophy, like me—
And we, old friend, shall never part!
I think—I often think of it—
10 The day we twain first faced the crowd;
My roistering friends impeached your fit,
But you and I were very proud!
Those jovial friends no more make free
With us (no longer new and smart),
15 But rather welcome you and me
As loving friends that should not part.
The patch? Oh, yes—one happy night—
"Lisette," says I, "it's time to go"—
20 She clutched this sleeve to stay my flight,
Shrieking: "What! leave so early? No!"
To mend the ghastly rent she'd made,
Three days she toiled, dear patient heart!
And I—right willingly I staid—
Lisette decreed we should not part!
25 No incense ever yet profaned
This honest, shiny warp of thine,
Nor hath a courtier's eye disdained
Thy faded hue and quaint design;
30 Let servile flattery be the price
Of ribbons in the royal mart—
A roadside posie shall suffice
For us two friends that must not part!
Fear not the recklessness of yore
Shall re-occur to vex thee now;
35 Alas, I am a youth no more—
I'm old and sere, and so art thou!
So bide with me unto the last
And with thy warmth caress this heart
That pleads, by memories of the Past,
40 That two such friends should never part!
The line from the poem that best supports the inference that the narrator wishes to be buried in the coat is: "And with thy warmth caress this heart." This line suggests that the coat holds sentimental value and provides comfort to the narrator. The use of the word "caress" implies a deep emotional connection, indicating that the narrator wishes to be physically close to the coat even in death.
Why did Pat Scully paint his hotel light blue?
A.
because herons are his favorite birds
B.
because it helps him make money
C.
because it blends in with the dazzling winter landscape
D.
because he wanted it to match the clapboard houses
A.
because herons are his favorite birds
B.
because it helps him make money
C.
because it blends in with the dazzling winter landscape
D.
because he wanted it to match the clapboard houses
The answer is not provided in the given information, and it would require further context or information about Pat Scully and his hotel to determine the specific reason why he painted it light blue.
The Palace Hotel at Fort Romper was painted a light blue. It is a shade that is on the legs of a kind of heron; the color causes the bird to declare its position against any background. The Palace Hotel, then, was always screaming and howling in a way that made the dazzling winter landscape of Nebraska seem only a gray hush. It stood alone on the prairie; when the snow was falling, the town two hundred yards away was not visible. But when the traveler alighted at the railway station, he had to pass the Palace Hotel before he could come upon the low, clapboard houses which made up Fort Romper; it was not to be thought that any traveler could pass the Palace Hotel without looking at it. Pat Scully, the owner, had proved himself a master of strategy when he chose his paints. It is true that on clear days, when the great express trains swept through Fort Romper, passengers were overcome at the sight.
Adapted from Stephen Crane's "The Blue Hotel, " 1898.
6
Select the correct answer.
Why did Pat Scully paint his hotel light blue?
A.
because herons are his favorite birds
B.
because it helps him make money
C.
because it blends in with the dazzling winter landscape
D.
because he wanted it to match the clapboard houses
Reset Next
Adapted from Stephen Crane's "The Blue Hotel, " 1898.
6
Select the correct answer.
Why did Pat Scully paint his hotel light blue?
A.
because herons are his favorite birds
B.
because it helps him make money
C.
because it blends in with the dazzling winter landscape
D.
because he wanted it to match the clapboard houses
Reset Next
The correct answer is B. because it helps him make money. The passage states that Pat Scully, the owner of the Palace Hotel, chose to paint it a light blue shade because it caused the hotel to stand out against the background, making it impossible for any traveler to pass by without looking at it. This strategic decision likely helped attract customers and generate business for the hotel.
A White Heron
by Sarah Orne Jewett
"Sylvy, Sylvy!" called the busy old grandmother again and again, but nobody answered, and the small husk bed was empty, and Sylvia had disappeared.
The guest waked from a dream; he remembered his day's pleasure and hurried to dress himself that it might sooner begin. He was sure from the way the shy little girl looked once or twice yesterday that she had at least seen the white heron, and now she must really be persuaded to tell. Here she comes now, paler than ever, and her worn old frock is torn and tattered and smeared with pine pitch. The grandmother and the sportsman stand in the door together and question her, and the splendid moment had come to speak of the herons nest in the dead hemlock tree by the green marsh.
But Sylvia does not speak after all, though the old grandmother fretfully rebukes her, and the young man's kind appealing eyes are looking straight into her own. He can make them rich with money; he has promised it, and they are poor now. He is so well worth making happy, and he waits to hear the story she can tell.
No, she must keep silence! What is it that suddenly forbids her and makes her dumb? Has she been nine years growing, and now, when the great world for the first time puts out a hand to her, must she thrust it aside for a bird's sake? The murmur of the pine's green branches is in her ears, she remembers how the white heron came flying through the golden air and how they watched the sea and the morning together, and Sylvia cannot speak; she cannot tell the heron's secret and give its life away.
Adapted from Sarah Orne Jewett's "A White Heron," 1886.
7
Select the correct answer.
What can you infer about Sylvia?
A.
She does not know how to speak the man’s language.
B.
She believes she will become rich, even if she doesn’t share the white heron’s location.
C.
She dislikes her grandmother for not keeping her secrets.
D.
She admires the white heron and wants to protect it.
by Sarah Orne Jewett
"Sylvy, Sylvy!" called the busy old grandmother again and again, but nobody answered, and the small husk bed was empty, and Sylvia had disappeared.
The guest waked from a dream; he remembered his day's pleasure and hurried to dress himself that it might sooner begin. He was sure from the way the shy little girl looked once or twice yesterday that she had at least seen the white heron, and now she must really be persuaded to tell. Here she comes now, paler than ever, and her worn old frock is torn and tattered and smeared with pine pitch. The grandmother and the sportsman stand in the door together and question her, and the splendid moment had come to speak of the herons nest in the dead hemlock tree by the green marsh.
But Sylvia does not speak after all, though the old grandmother fretfully rebukes her, and the young man's kind appealing eyes are looking straight into her own. He can make them rich with money; he has promised it, and they are poor now. He is so well worth making happy, and he waits to hear the story she can tell.
No, she must keep silence! What is it that suddenly forbids her and makes her dumb? Has she been nine years growing, and now, when the great world for the first time puts out a hand to her, must she thrust it aside for a bird's sake? The murmur of the pine's green branches is in her ears, she remembers how the white heron came flying through the golden air and how they watched the sea and the morning together, and Sylvia cannot speak; she cannot tell the heron's secret and give its life away.
Adapted from Sarah Orne Jewett's "A White Heron," 1886.
7
Select the correct answer.
What can you infer about Sylvia?
A.
She does not know how to speak the man’s language.
B.
She believes she will become rich, even if she doesn’t share the white heron’s location.
C.
She dislikes her grandmother for not keeping her secrets.
D.
She admires the white heron and wants to protect it.
The correct answer is D. She admires the white heron and wants to protect it. The passage states that Sylvia cannot speak and give away the heron's secret. This implies that Sylvia values the heron's life and wants to keep its location a secret, indicating her admiration for the bird and her desire to protect it.
Match the sentence to the part of the paragraph it represents.
claim
commentary
evidence
The princess’s dragon represents her emotions.
arrowRight
When she leaves a “difficult discussion with the king,”
the princess’s dragon “winds its tail around itself tightly.”
arrowRight
The fact that the dragon “tightly” curls its tail around
itself suggests that it, like the princess, is very tense.
arrowRight
claim
commentary
evidence
The princess’s dragon represents her emotions.
arrowRight
When she leaves a “difficult discussion with the king,”
the princess’s dragon “winds its tail around itself tightly.”
arrowRight
The fact that the dragon “tightly” curls its tail around
itself suggests that it, like the princess, is very tense.
arrowRight