Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 36 to 42.

Certain birds are, more often than not, considered bad luck, or even a sign of impending death. For example, all over the world, both crows and ravens have some connection to war, and death. In early times, crows and ravens were thought to accompany the gods of war, or be signs of the god’s approaching arrival. This idea later changed. Crows  in particular were thought to be harbingers of ill fortune or, in some cases, guides to the afterlife. Woe be it to the person who saw a single crow or raven flying overhead, for this was most certainly a portent of death in the near future.

Interestingly, though potentially bad luck for people individually, the raven is considered to be  good luck for the crown of England. So much so, in fact, that a “raven master” is, even today, an actual government position in London. He takes care of the ravens there and also clips their wings, ensuring that these birds can never fly far from the seat of the British government. This way, the kingdom will never fall to ill fortune. 

Another bird that is thought to play a part in forecasting the fortunes of people is the swallow. Depending on how and when it is seen, the swallow can be a harbinger of either good or ill fortune. Perhaps inspired  the swallow’s red-brown breast, Christian people initially related the swallow to the death of Jesus Christ. Thus, people who saw a swallow fly through their house considered it a portent of death. Later, however, farmers began to consider swallows signs of good fortune. Any barn that has swallows living in it is sure to be blessed in the following year. Farmers also have to beware of killing a swallow; that would be certain to end any good luck they might have had. 

Though many people think these superstitions are old wives’ tales, there is actually some evidence to support them. For example, crows and ravens, being scavengers, appear at the aftermath of battles. Thus, large numbers of crows and ravens could be good indications of war in an area. As well, swallows feed on insects that can cause infections in cattle. Thus, a farmer who has many swallows in his barn may actually have healthier animals on his farm. Therefore, the next time you feel inclined to laugh at an old wives’ tale, maybe you  had better find out if there is any truth to it first

Which birds are considered harbingers of bad luck?

A. Crows 

B. Swallows  

C. Ravens        

D. All of the above

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

  The idea of preserving biological diversity gives most people a warm feeling inside. But what, exactly, is diversity? And which kind is most worth preserving? It may be anathema to save-the-lot environmentalists who hate setting such priorities, but academics are starting to cook up answers.

  Andrew Solow, a mathematician at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and his colleagues argue that in the eyes of conservation, all species should not be equal. Even more controversially, they suggest that preserving the rarest is not always the best approach. Their measure of diversity is the amount of evolutionary distance between species. They reckon that if choices must be made, then the number of times that cousins are removed from one another should be one of the criteria.

  This makes sense from both a practical and an aesthetic point of view. Close relatives have many genes in common. If those genes might be medically or agriculturally valuable, saving one is nearly as good as saving both. And different forms are more interesting to admire and study than lots of things that look the same. Dr Solow’s group illustrates its thesis with an example. Six species of crane are at some risk of extinction. Breeding in captivity might save them. But suppose there were only enough money to protect three. Which ones should be picked?

  The genetic distances between 14 species of cranes, including the six at risk, have already been established using a technique known as DNA hybridisation. The group estimated how likely it was that each of these 14 species would become extinct in the next 50 years. Unendangered species were assigned a 10% chance of meeting the Darwinian reaper-man; the most vulnerable, a 90% chance. Captive breeding was assumed to reduce an otherwise endangered species’ risk to the 10% level of the safest. Dr Solow’s computer permed all possible combinations of three from six and came to the conclusion that protecting the Siberian, white-naped and black-necked cranes gave the smallest likely loss of biological diversity over the next five decades. The other three had close relatives in little need of protection. Even if they became extinct, most of their genes would be saved.

  Building on the work of this group, Martin Weitzman, of Harvard University, argues that conservation policy needs to take account not only of some firm measure of the genetic relationships of species to each other and their likelihood of survival, but also the costs of preserving them. Where species are equally important in genetic terms, and - an important and improbable precondition - where the protection of one species can be assured at the expense of another, he argues for making safe species safer, rather than endangered species less endangered.

  In practice, it is difficult to choose between species. Most of those at risk - especially plants, the group most likely to yield useful medicines - are under threat because their habitats are in trouble, not because they are being shot, or plucked, to extinction. Nor can conservationists choose among the millions of species that theory predicts must exist, but that have not yet been classified by the biologists assigned to that tedious task.

  This is not necessarily cause for despair. At the moment, the usual way to save the genes in these creatures is to find the bits of the world with the largest number of species and try to protect them from the bulldozers. What economists require from biologists are more sophisticated ways to estimate the diversity of groups of organisms that happen to live together, as well as those which are related to each other. With clearer goals established, economic theory can then tell environmentalists where to go.

[from The Economist]

Most species are endangered because _____________.

A. biologists haven’t classified them 

B. they are hunted or picked 

C. we don’t care enough about them 

D. the places they live in are being destroyed

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

  The idea of preserving biological diversity gives most people a warm feeling inside. But what, exactly, is diversity? And which kind is most worth preserving? It may be anathema to save-the-lot environmentalists who hate setting such priorities, but academics are starting to cook up answers.

  Andrew Solow, a mathematician at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and his colleagues argue that in the eyes of conservation, all species should not be equal. Even more controversially, they suggest that preserving the rarest is not always the best approach. Their measure of diversity is the amount of evolutionary distance between species. They reckon that if choices must be made, then the number of times that cousins are removed from one another should be one of the criteria.

  This makes sense from both a practical and an aesthetic point of view. Close relatives have many genes in common. If those genes might be medically or agriculturally valuable, saving one is nearly as good as saving both. And different forms are more interesting to admire and study than lots of things that look the same. Dr Solow’s group illustrates its thesis with an example. Six species of crane are at some risk of extinction. Breeding in captivity might save them. But suppose there were only enough money to protect three. Which ones should be picked?

  The genetic distances between 14 species of cranes, including the six at risk, have already been established using a technique known as DNA hybridisation. The group estimated how likely it was that each of these 14 species would become extinct in the next 50 years. Unendangered species were assigned a 10% chance of meeting the Darwinian reaper-man; the most vulnerable, a 90% chance. Captive breeding was assumed to reduce an otherwise endangered species’ risk to the 10% level of the safest. Dr Solow’s computer permed all possible combinations of three from six and came to the conclusion that protecting the Siberian, white-naped and black-necked cranes gave the smallest likely loss of biological diversity over the next five decades. The other three had close relatives in little need of protection. Even if they became extinct, most of their genes would be saved.

  Building on the work of this group, Martin Weitzman, of Harvard University, argues that conservation policy needs to take account not only of some firm measure of the genetic relationships of species to each other and their likelihood of survival, but also the costs of preserving them. Where species are equally important in genetic terms, and - an important and improbable precondition - where the protection of one species can be assured at the expense of another, he argues for making safe species safer, rather than endangered species less endangered.

  In practice, it is difficult to choose between species. Most of those at risk - especially plants, the group most likely to yield useful medicines - are under threat because their habitats are in trouble, not because they are being shot, or plucked, to extinction. Nor can conservationists choose among the millions of species that theory predicts must exist, but that have not yet been classified by the biologists assigned to that tedious task.

  This is not necessarily cause for despair. At the moment, the usual way to save the genes in these creatures is to find the bits of the world with the largest number of species and try to protect them from the bulldozers. What economists require from biologists are more sophisticated ways to estimate the diversity of groups of organisms that happen to live together, as well as those which are related to each other. With clearer goals established, economic theory can then tell environmentalists where to go.

[from The Economist]

According to the writer what has to be done first is for _____________.

A. biologists to instruct economists 

B. biologists to classify undiscovered species 

C. developers to stop destroying habitats 

D. economists to instruct biologists

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the correct answer to each of the question.

Certain birds are, more often than not, considered bad luck, or even a sign of impending death. For example, all over the world, both crows and ravens have some connection to war and death. In early times, crows and ravens were thought to accompany the gods of war, or be signs of the gods’ approaching arrival. This idea later changed. Crows in particular were thought to be harbingers of ill fortune or, in some cases, guides to the afterlife. Woe be it to the person who saw a single crow or raven flying overhead, for this was most certainly a portent of death in the near future.

Interestingly, though potentially bad luck for people individually, the raven is considered to be good luck for the crown of England. So much so, in fact, that a “raven master” is, even today, an actual government position in London. He takes care of the ravens there and also clips their wings, ensuring that these birds can never fly far from the seat of the British government. This way, the kingdom will never fall to ill fortune.

Another bird that is thought to play a part in forecasting the fortunes of people is the swallow. Depending on how and when it is seen, the swallow can be a harbinger of either good or ill fortune. Perhaps inspired by the swallow's red-brown breast, Christian people initially related the swallow to the death of Jesus Christ. Thus, people who saw a swallow fly through their house considered it a portent of death. Later, however, farmers began to consider swallows signs of good fortune. Any barn that has swallows living in it is sure to be blessed in the following year. Farmers also have to beware of killing a swallow; that would be certain to end any good luck they might have had.

Though many people think these superstitions are old wives’ tales, there is actually some evidence to support them. For example, crows and ravens, being scavengers, appear at the aftermath of battles. Thus, large numbers of crows and ravens could be good indications of war in an area. As well, swallows feed on insects that can cause infections in cattle. Thus, a farmer who has many swallows in his barn may actually have healthier animals on his farm. Therefore, the next time you feel inclined to laugh at an old wives’ tale, maybe you had better find out if there is any truth to it first!

(Adapted from Reading Challenge 3 by Casey Malarcher and Andrea janzen)

Which of the following most accurately reflects the author's suggestion in the last paragraph?

A. The old wives' tales are more often used for fun than the truth. 

B. Although some superstitions are based on reality, people should not believe in them. 

C. People should not make fun of the superstition. 

D. Farmers should protect the swallows to prevent bad lucks.

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

  The idea of preserving biological diversity gives most people a warm feeling inside. But what, exactly, is diversity? And which kind is most worth preserving? It may be anathema to save-the-lot environmentalists who hate setting such priorities, but academics are starting to cook up answers.

  Andrew Solow, a mathematician at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and his colleagues argue that in the eyes of conservation, all species should not be equal. Even more controversially, they suggest that preserving the rarest is not always the best approach. Their measure of diversity is the amount of evolutionary distance between species. They reckon that if choices must be made, then the number of times that cousins are removed from one another should be one of the criteria.

  This makes sense from both a practical and an aesthetic point of view. Close relatives have many genes in common. If those genes might be medically or agriculturally valuable, saving one is nearly as good as saving both. And different forms are more interesting to admire and study than lots of things that look the same. Dr Solow’s group illustrates its thesis with an example. Six species of crane are at some risk of extinction. Breeding in captivity might save them. But suppose there were only enough money to protect three. Which ones should be picked?

  The genetic distances between 14 species of cranes, including the six at risk, have already been established using a technique known as DNA hybridisation. The group estimated how likely it was that each of these 14 species would become extinct in the next 50 years. Unendangered species were assigned a 10% chance of meeting the Darwinian reaper-man; the most vulnerable, a 90% chance. Captive breeding was assumed to reduce an otherwise endangered species’ risk to the 10% level of the safest. Dr Solow’s computer permed all possible combinations of three from six and came to the conclusion that protecting the Siberian, white-naped and black-necked cranes gave the smallest likely loss of biological diversity over the next five decades. The other three had close relatives in little need of protection. Even if they became extinct, most of their genes would be saved.

  Building on the work of this group, Martin Weitzman, of Harvard University, argues that conservation policy needs to take account not only of some firm measure of the genetic relationships of species to each other and their likelihood of survival, but also the costs of preserving them. Where species are equally important in genetic terms, and - an important and improbable precondition - where the protection of one species can be assured at the expense of another, he argues for making safe species safer, rather than endangered species less endangered.

  In practice, it is difficult to choose between species. Most of those at risk - especially plants, the group most likely to yield useful medicines - are under threat because their habitats are in trouble, not because they are being shot, or plucked, to extinction. Nor can conservationists choose among the millions of species that theory predicts must exist, but that have not yet been classified by the biologists assigned to that tedious task.

  This is not necessarily cause for despair. At the moment, the usual way to save the genes in these creatures is to find the bits of the world with the largest number of species and try to protect them from the bulldozers. What economists require from biologists are more sophisticated ways to estimate the diversity of groups of organisms that happen to live together, as well as those which are related to each other. With clearer goals established, economic theory can then tell environmentalists where to go.

[from The Economist]

Dr Weitzman believes that if two species are equally important genetically we should protect _____________.

A. the one that is more attractive 

B. them both 

C. the less endangered one 

D. the rarer one

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

  The idea of preserving biological diversity gives most people a warm feeling inside. But what, exactly, is diversity? And which kind is most worth preserving? It may be anathema to save-the-lot environmentalists who hate setting such priorities, but academics are starting to cook up answers.

  Andrew Solow, a mathematician at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and his colleagues argue that in the eyes of conservation, all species should not be equal. Even more controversially, they suggest that preserving the rarest is not always the best approach. Their measure of diversity is the amount of evolutionary distance between species. They reckon that if choices must be made, then the number of times that cousins are removed from one another should be one of the criteria.

  This makes sense from both a practical and an aesthetic point of view. Close relatives have many genes in common. If those genes might be medically or agriculturally valuable, saving one is nearly as good as saving both. And different forms are more interesting to admire and study than lots of things that look the same. Dr Solow’s group illustrates its thesis with an example. Six species of crane are at some risk of extinction. Breeding in captivity might save them. But suppose there were only enough money to protect three. Which ones should be picked?

  The genetic distances between 14 species of cranes, including the six at risk, have already been established using a technique known as DNA hybridisation. The group estimated how likely it was that each of these 14 species would become extinct in the next 50 years. Unendangered species were assigned a 10% chance of meeting the Darwinian reaper-man; the most vulnerable, a 90% chance. Captive breeding was assumed to reduce an otherwise endangered species’ risk to the 10% level of the safest. Dr Solow’s computer permed all possible combinations of three from six and came to the conclusion that protecting the Siberian, white-naped and black-necked cranes gave the smallest likely loss of biological diversity over the next five decades. The other three had close relatives in little need of protection. Even if they became extinct, most of their genes would be saved.

  Building on the work of this group, Martin Weitzman, of Harvard University, argues that conservation policy needs to take account not only of some firm measure of the genetic relationships of species to each other and their likelihood of survival, but also the costs of preserving them. Where species are equally important in genetic terms, and - an important and improbable precondition - where the protection of one species can be assured at the expense of another, he argues for making safe species safer, rather than endangered species less endangered.

  In practice, it is difficult to choose between species. Most of those at risk - especially plants, the group most likely to yield useful medicines - are under threat because their habitats are in trouble, not because they are being shot, or plucked, to extinction. Nor can conservationists choose among the millions of species that theory predicts must exist, but that have not yet been classified by the biologists assigned to that tedious task.

  This is not necessarily cause for despair. At the moment, the usual way to save the genes in these creatures is to find the bits of the world with the largest number of species and try to protect them from the bulldozers. What economists require from biologists are more sophisticated ways to estimate the diversity of groups of organisms that happen to live together, as well as those which are related to each other. With clearer goals established, economic theory can then tell environmentalists where to go.

[from The Economist]

Three of the six species of endangered cranes _____________

A. were less interesting to admire than others 

B. could be allowed to become extinct 

C. were so rare they couldn’t be saved 

D. shouldn’t be protected

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 36 to 42.

Homing pigeons are placed in a training program from about the time they are twenty-eight days of age. They are taught to enter the loft through a trap and to exercise above and around the loft, and gradually they are taken away for short distances in wicker baskets and released. They are then expected to find their way home in the shortest possible time.

In their training flights or in actual races, the birds are taken to prearranged distant points and released to find their way back to their own lofts. Once the birds are liberated, their owners, who are standing by at the home lofts, anxiously watch the sky for the return of their entries. Since time is of the essence, the speed with which the birds can be induced to enter the loft trap may make the difference between gaining a win or a second place.

The head of a homing pigeon is comparatively small, but its brain is one quarter larger than that of the ordinary pigeon. The homing pigeon is very intelligent and will persevere to the point of stubbornness some have been known to fly a hundred miles off course to avoid a storm.

Some homing pigeon experts claim that this bird is gifted with a form of built-in radar that helps it find its own loft after hours of flight, for hidden under the head feathers are two very sensitive ears, while the sharp, prominent eyes can see great distances in daytime.

Why do homing pigeons fly home? They are not unique in this inherent skill: it is found in most migratory birds, in bees, ants, toads, and even turtles, which have been known to travel hundreds of miles to return to their homes. But in the animal world, the homing pigeon alone can be trusted with its freedom and trained to carry out the missions that people demand

According to the passage, what is the difference between a homing pigeon and an ordinary one?

A. The span of the wings

B. The shape of the eyes

C. The texture of the feathers

D. The size of the brain

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 36 to 42. 

Homing pigeons are placed in a training program from about the time they are twenty-eight days of age. They are taught to enter the loft through a trap and to exercise above and around the loft, and gradually they are taken away for short distances in wicker baskets and released. They are then expected to find their way home in the shortest possible time.        

 In their training flights or in actual races, the birds are taken to prearranged distant points and released to find their way back to their own lofts. Once the birds are liberated, their owners, who are standing by at the home lofts, anxiously watch the sky for the return of their entries. Since time is of the essence, the speed with which the birds can be induced to enter the loft trap may make the difference between gaining a win or a second place.         

The head of a homing pigeon is comparatively small, but its brain is one quarter larger than that of the ordinary pigeon. The homing pigeon is very intelligent and will persevere to the point of stubbornness; some have been known to fly a hundred miles off course to avoid a storm.   

Some homing pigeon experts claim that this bird is gifted with a form of built-in radar that helps it find its own loft after hours of flight, for hidden under the head feathers are two very sensitive ears, while the sharp, prominent eyes can see great distances in daytime.

Why do homing pigeons fly home? They are not unique in this inherent skill: it is found in most migratory birds, in bees, ants, toads, and even turtles, which have been known to travel hundreds of miles to return to their homes. But in the animal world, the homing pigeon alone can be trusted with its freedom and trained to carry out the missions that people demand

According to the passage, what is the difference between a homing pigeon and an ordinary one?

A. The span of the wings 

B. The shape of the eyes         

C. The texture of the feathers 

D. The size of the brain

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

  The idea of preserving biological diversity gives most people a warm feeling inside. But what, exactly, is diversity? And which kind is most worth preserving? It may be anathema to save-the-lot environmentalists who hate setting such priorities, but academics are starting to cook up answers.

  Andrew Solow, a mathematician at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and his colleagues argue that in the eyes of conservation, all species should not be equal. Even more controversially, they suggest that preserving the rarest is not always the best approach. Their measure of diversity is the amount of evolutionary distance between species. They reckon that if choices must be made, then the number of times that cousins are removed from one another should be one of the criteria.

  This makes sense from both a practical and an aesthetic point of view. Close relatives have many genes in common. If those genes might be medically or agriculturally valuable, saving one is nearly as good as saving both. And different forms are more interesting to admire and study than lots of things that look the same. Dr Solow’s group illustrates its thesis with an example. Six species of crane are at some risk of extinction. Breeding in captivity might save them. But suppose there were only enough money to protect three. Which ones should be picked?

  The genetic distances between 14 species of cranes, including the six at risk, have already been established using a technique known as DNA hybridisation. The group estimated how likely it was that each of these 14 species would become extinct in the next 50 years. Unendangered species were assigned a 10% chance of meeting the Darwinian reaper-man; the most vulnerable, a 90% chance. Captive breeding was assumed to reduce an otherwise endangered species’ risk to the 10% level of the safest. Dr Solow’s computer permed all possible combinations of three from six and came to the conclusion that protecting the Siberian, white-naped and black-necked cranes gave the smallest likely loss of biological diversity over the next five decades. The other three had close relatives in little need of protection. Even if they became extinct, most of their genes would be saved.

  Building on the work of this group, Martin Weitzman, of Harvard University, argues that conservation policy needs to take account not only of some firm measure of the genetic relationships of species to each other and their likelihood of survival, but also the costs of preserving them. Where species are equally important in genetic terms, and - an important and improbable precondition - where the protection of one species can be assured at the expense of another, he argues for making safe species safer, rather than endangered species less endangered.

  In practice, it is difficult to choose between species. Most of those at risk - especially plants, the group most likely to yield useful medicines - are under threat because their habitats are in trouble, not because they are being shot, or plucked, to extinction. Nor can conservationists choose among the millions of species that theory predicts must exist, but that have not yet been classified by the biologists assigned to that tedious task.

  This is not necessarily cause for despair. At the moment, the usual way to save the genes in these creatures is to find the bits of the world with the largest number of species and try to protect them from the bulldozers. What economists require from biologists are more sophisticated ways to estimate the diversity of groups of organisms that happen to live together, as well as those which are related to each other. With clearer goals established, economic theory can then tell environmentalists where to go.

[from The Economist]

Endangered species of cranes can be saved by _____________

A. stopping hunters from killing them 

B. protecting their habitats 

C. encouraging them to mate with their cousins 

D. keeping them in zoos or wildlife parks