Be sure to choose each answer carefully. You get only one try to answer each question correctly!
This space contains reference material
beginning next to Question 24. There are two separate
passages to read: "Saving Our Vanishing Heritage" and
"Saving Our Vanishing 'Tongues.'"
Saving Our Vanishing Heritage
The following passage is the foreword of a report from
the Global Heritage Fund, an international conservancy
whose mission is to protect, preserve, and sustain the
most significant and endangered cultural heritage sites
in the developing world.
Saving Our Vanishing Heritage explores the challenges
facing our most significant and endangered
archaeological and heritage sites in the developing
world—and what we can do to save them—before they are
lost forever.
Our focus on the developing world is driven by the large
number of important cultural heritage sites which exist
in regions with little capacity to safeguard their
existence. In the first decade of the 21st century, we
have lost or seriously impaired hundreds of our most
precious historic sites—the physical record of our human
civilization.
Vanishing surveys over 500 global heritage sites and
highlights the accelerating threats facing these
cultural treasures. Many have survived thousands of
years, only to be lost in this generation—on our watch.
With the critical review of 24 leading experts working
in heritage conservation and international development,
this report surveys hundreds of endangered global
heritage sites and strives to identify those most in
need of immediate intervention, and what the global
community can do to save them.
Our primary goals of this report are:
to raise critically needed global awareness
to identify innovative technologies and solutions
to increase funding through private-public
partnerships
Vanishing’s findings strongly suggest that the demise of
our most significant cultural heritage sites has become
a global crisis, on par with environmental destruction.
GHF surveyed over 1,600 accounts published between 2000
and 2009 concerning the state of conservation of
hundreds of major sites in the developing world.
In this report, GHF considered sites with the highest
potential for responsible development critical for the
sustained preservation of the site. GHF considers the
scientific conservation of a site and its potential for
responsible development during our design and planning
process resulting in an integrated master plan and
strategy that goes well beyond traditional monument
based approaches to preservation. This report represents
the first attempt to quantify the value of heritage
sites as global economic resources to help achieve the
UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Vanishing focuses on significant global heritage sites
that have high potential for future tourism and
responsible development, but the report’s findings and
recommendations can and should be extended to other
realms of heritage preservation. Global heritage sites
generate extremely high economic asset values, with some
worth billions of dollars a year. These sites can help
to greatly diversify local economies beyond tourism and
sustenance agriculture reducing dependency and
alleviating poverty.
Vanishing begins a global campaign to save the most
important and endangered heritage sites in the
developing world.
How we as a global community act—or fail to act—in the
coming years will determine if we save our global
heritage and can realize the untapped economic
opportunity these precious sites offer for global
development in the world's lowest-income communities and
countries.
Saving Vanishing
“Tongues”
by Stephen Ornes
Press “record” to
pause extinction
Many languages disappear every year. In a race against
time, language researchers are using digital technology
to preserve those tongues from extinction.
Linguists and other scientists record, share and study
dwindling tongues so the value of the language won’t be
lost. These researchers use modern technology, including
voice recorders, MP3 players, computer software and
online dictionaries, to preserve words and sounds that
would otherwise vanish.
“We can’t always stop [language extinction] from
happening, but we can make recordings of a language for
future studies,” says Steven Bird. A computer scientist
at the University of Melbourne in Australia, he develops
software for recording languages. “People can preserve
these languages now, while there’s still time,” he says.
Documenting a language before it goes quiet isn’t just
an effort to preserve history. Linguists also can study
the particular sounds, words and structure of a language
to better understand how it is related to others. For
instance, understanding how the English language’s roots
lie in ancient Germanic tells a story about human
history.
Languages also can provide unique insights into a place.
For example, a native tribe may have lived in one remote
region for thousands of years. That means its members
know their natural surroundings better than anyone else.
Their language may contain terms that reflect special
knowledge about the local landscape, its plants and its
animals, Harrison points out. This can aid scientists
who want to study ecosystems near to where the language
is spoken.
But Harrison sees his job as more than just aiding
science. He appreciates helping members of these
threatened cultures preserve part of their heritage.
Many young people, he says, want to remember their own
history—even as they engage with the rest of the world.
“I come across many people in their teens and early 20s
who want to keep their heritage language because they
value it,” he says. “They’re saying, ‘Hey, our language
is important to us. If we lose it, we lose our
identity.’”
Margaret Noodin can relate to that. She’s a linguist at
the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Growing up in
Minnesota during the 1970s, she occasionally heard
members of her family speaking Anishinaabemowin (Ah-neesh-ee-nah-beh-MO-win).
It’s the language of the Ojibwe (Oh-JIB-way) Native
American people.
Back then, speaking her tribe’s language was a risky
move. That's because the U.S. government had forbidden
Native American tribes from practicing many of their
customs, including some parts of religious ceremonies.
That ban extended to their native languages.
“It didn’t count as a language in many ways, since it
was illegal to teach and publish,” Noodin says.
Forty years ago, the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act became law. It was followed, 12 years later, by the
Native American Languages Act. These changed government
attitudes. With these laws, the United States now
recognized Native American cultural practices as
valuable. And it again legalized the teaching and
publishing of Native American languages.
That policy inspired a generation of people to preserve
tribal heritage. Growing up in an environment where her
language had been forbidden left a big mark on Noodin.
She has spent decades since then studying the endangered
language of her family. She also is working with other
Native American tribes to preserve theirs.
For Questions 1-12, please mark the letter of the correct definition of the given vocabulary word.
behemoth
bad
ancient
a giant
to vomit
glutinous
sticky
to gut
to prevent
friendly
gregarious
sticky
to gut
to prevent
friendly
eviscerate
sticky
to gut
to prevent
friendly
emaciated
freed
horrible
unchanging
gaunt
regurgitate
bad
ancient
a giant
to vomit
monotonous
freed
horrible
unchanging
gaunt
infernal
freed
horrible
unchanging
gaunt
amoral
bad
ancient
a giant
to vomit
primeval
bad
ancient
a giant
to vomit
unfettered
freed
horrible
unchanging
gaunt
forestall
sticky
to gut
to prevent
friendly
Look at the italicized sample sentence: Cottages still ____ along the shores of the lake where we _____ the can of bait last summer. Which of the following words could be placed in the
first blank?
lie
lay
laid
lain
Look at the sample italicized sentence: Cottages still ____ along the shores of the lake where we _____ the can of bait last summer.
Which of the following words could be placed in the second blank?
lie
lay
laid
lain
How does Pi determine that his mastery of the lifeboat is “no longer in question” (p.222)?
RP allows Pi to stay in the lifeboat.
RP lets him have the special Dorado.
RP begins to spend all of his time on the raft.
RP is no longer the least bit scary to Pi.
What’s the “single most constant source of anxiety and suffering” (p.224) for Pi and RP on their journey?
hunger
storms
fear
thirst
When Pi narrates, “The clouds looked as if they were stumbling along before the wind, frightened” (p. 225), he’s using _____ to describe a _____.
personification; storm
onomatopoeia; whale
hyperbole; ship
idiom; wave
Pi chooses death by ______ over _____ before an oncoming storm, but he ends up losing ____________.
water; animal; solar stills
animal; water; the raft
thirst; starvation; food
starvation; thirst; water
Which of the following is not an example of irony from this week’s reading?
No one on the closely passing ship sees the lifeboat.
Instead of rescuing Pi, the ship almost runs him over.
Pi notes that the other survivor is French.
The murderous survivor is killed by RP.
Why does Pi think that the other survivor is RP, and why do Pi and the other survivor have trouble finding each other?
The survivor is quiet, and Pi is dreaming.
The survivor only growls, and Pi is afraid.
The survivor walks softly, and Pi is hoping to find his brother.
The survivor only growls, and both the survivor and Pi are blind.
Which sentence is written correctly?
Because the law only affects individuals, not governmental bodies, the lawsuit was dismissed.
Because the law only affects individuals not governmental bodies, the lawsuit was dismissed.
Because the law only effects individuals, not governmental bodies, the lawsuit was dismissed.
Because the law does not effect governmental bodies but only individuals, as a result of that law the lawsuit was dismissed.
Which choice answers the italicized question correctly and is also grammatically correct? How many people does the survivor say he has killed, and what reason does he give for the murder(s)?
The survivor says that he has killed two people, a man and a woman, out of need and due to circumstance.
The survivor says that he has killed three people, two men and a woman, out of the need for self-protection and due to an accident.
The survivor says that he has killed no one, but was falsely accused of killing a child, out of others' need to hide their own sins.
The survivor says that he has killed one person, a man who had attacked him, out of the need for immediate and future self-protection.
What is the “terrible cost of Richard Parker” (p. 255)? How is the entire situation involved in this terrible cost ironic? What in Pi dies during this ordeal, and why has it “never come back to life” (p. 255)?
The “terrible cost of Richard Parker” is the loss of Pi’s humanity. More specifically, Pi descends to a true animal nature, encourages the tiger to kill the visitor, and then eats his flesh. This action affects Pi so deeply, he claims that something in him dies with this survivor and never returns. The entire situation is ironic because it seems that the castaway is actually intending to kill and eat Pi, but it is Pi who eats the castaway. Furthermore, it seems strangely ironic that Pi blames the cost on Richard Parker when it is Pi himself who has become a beast in order to save his own life. The entire situation reveals a lot about Pi who never really embraced the sanctity of human life nor the presence of a divine being in control of the universe. Surely, Pi’s humanity is what dies and “never [comes] back to life” after this harrowing coming-of-age experience.
The “terrible cost of Richard Parker” is the blindness of the tiger. More specifically, Pi blames the tiger for accidentally killing the castaway. This death affects Pi so deeply, he claims that something in him dies with this survivor and never returns. The entire situation is ironic because it seems that the castaway was actually intending to kill and eat Pi, but Pi eats the castaway instead. The idea that Pi mourns the death of someone whom Pi later emulates is extremely ironic. Furthermore, it is ironic that Pi views Richard Parker as a cost when the tiger actually saves his life (again). The entire situation reveals a lot about Pi’s current depravity. Surely, his humanity is what dies and “never [comes] back to life” after this harrowing coming-of-age experience. It is clear that Pi will never be able to re-enter human society.
The “terrible cost of Richard Parker” is the life of Pi’s fellow castaway. More specifically, Pi credits the tiger with giving him (Pi) his life at the expense of taking another. This death affects Pi so deeply, he claims that something in him dies with this survivor and never returns. The entire situation is ironic because it seems that the castaway is actually intending to kill and eat Pi. The idea that Pi mourns the death of someone who intends to murder and feast on him seems contrary to what would be expected from the teen. Furthermore, it seems strangely ironic that Pi views Richard Parker as a cost when the beast actually saves his life (again). The entire situation reveals a lot about Pi’s innocent sensitivity and about how much he values sentient life. Surely, his innocence is what dies and “never [comes] back to life” after this harrowing coming-of-age experience.
The “terrible cost of Richard Parker” is the loss of Pi’s trust in the tiger. More specifically, Pi believes that since the tiger has killed and eaten the visiting castaway, Richard Parker will now want to eat Pi. The castaway’s death is symbolic of the death of Pi’s hope for survival and Pi’s hope will never return. The entire situation is ironic because it seems that the castaway was actually intending to kill and eat Pi. The idea that Pi mourns the death of someone so evil reduces readers’ liking for Pi who is in reality mourning only the probable loss of his own future. Furthermore, it seems strangely ironic that Pi views Richard Parker as a cost when the tiger actually saves his life (again). The entire situation reveals a lot about Pi’s selfishness. Surely, his trust and hope are what dies and “never [comes] back to life” after this harrowing coming-of-age experience.
Part A: Which statement describes a claim made in both “Saving Vanishing ‘Tongues’” and “Saving Our Vanishing History”?
Preserving dying languages and heritage sites makes economic sense.
Preserving dying languages and heritage sites saves cultures from disappearing.
Preserving dying languages and heritage sites boosts tourism.
Preserving dying languages and heritage sites needs to be legally mandated.
Part B: Which detail from “Saving Vanishing ‘Tongues’”
best supports the answer to Part A?
For example, a native tribe may have lived in one remote region for thousands of years. That means its members know their natural surroundings better than anyone else.
But Harrison sees his job as more than just aiding science. He appreciates helping members of these threatened cultures preserve part of their heritage.
Linguists and other scientists record, share and study dwindling tongues so the value of the language won’t be lost.
For instance, understanding how the English language’s roots lie in ancient Germanic tells a story about human history.
Which choice best describes how the author of “Saving Our Vanishing Heritage” and the author of “Saving Vanishing ‘Tongues’” convey their points of view?
The author of “Saving Our Vanishing Heritage” uses persuasive language to urge the reader to agree, while the author of “Saving Vanishing ‘Tongues’” mostly uses information to educate his audience.
The author of “Saving Our Vanishing Heritage” applies informative terms to educate the reader, while the author of “Saving Vanishing ‘Tongues’” relies mainly on descriptive language to create a clear image for the reader.
The author of “Saving Our Vanishing Heritage” employs descriptive terms to create a strong visual, while the author of “Saving Vanishing ‘Tongues’” applies evocative terms to convince readers to take action.
The author of “Saving Our Vanishing Heritage” utilizes factual data to strengthen his or her argument, while the author of “Saving Vanishing ‘Tongues’ relies solely on opinion to make a strong statement.