Mr. Fornnarino's Honors English 1, Quiz 25 (Traditional Grading)
Be sure to choose each answer carefully. You get only one try to answer each question correctly!
For Questions 1-12, please mark the letter of the correct definition of the given vocabulary word.
demur
(adj.) embarrassed
(adj.) uncultured
(v.) to object
(adv.) jokingly
facetiously
(adj.) embarrassed
(adj.) uncultured
(v.) to object
(adv.) jokingly
cynical
(n.) a triviality
(adj.) calm
(adj.) sadly confident
(adj.) pessimistic
trifle
(n.) a triviality
(adj.) calm
(adj.) sadly confident
(adj.) pessimistic
furtive
(adj.) angry
(v.) to blame
(adj.) secretive
(adv.) sadly
heathen
(adj.) embarrassed
(adj.) uncultured
(v.) to object
(adv.) jokingly
peeved
(adj.) angry
(v.) to blame
(adj.) secretive
(adv.) sadly
abashed
(adj.) embarrassed
(adj.) uncultured
(v.) to object
(adv.) jokingly
fatalistic
(n.) a triviality
(adj.) calm
(adj.) sadly confident
(adj.) pessimistic
reproach
(adj.) angry
(v.) to blame
(adj.) secretive
(adv.) sadly
ruefully
(adj.) angry
(v.) to blame
(adj.) secretive
(adv.) sadly
impassive
(n.) a triviality
(adj.) calm
(adj.) sadly confident
(adj.) pessimistic
Which of the following is
not a way to correct a run-on sentence?
Add a comma only.
Add a period and capitalization.
Add a semicolon.
Add a comma and a conjunction.
Where should the following run-on sentence be divided? Her hair had been like Felicia’s hair it was straight and thick.
between like & Felicia’s
between Felicia’s & hair
between hair & it
between it & was
Which of the following sentences is written correctly?
Father was away he would be back soon.
Since her mother would be late, she had arranged for a babysitter to come.
Felicia studied the babysitter, she had a face filled with sorrow.
She had been a ballet student Felicia studied ballet, too.
What piece of evidence in “Trifles” convinces Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale about the motive for the murder and the identity of the killer?
the erratic sewing
the frozen fruit
the rope around Mr. Wright’s neck
the dead bird
Why are the women’s insightful discoveries about the case ironic?
Mrs. Wright was a good friend of theirs.
One of them helped to plan the murder.
The condescending men are the actual investigators.
They have no sympathy for Mrs. Wright.
How does Scout know the jury’s verdict before it’s read in open court?
None of the jury members look at Tom.
The jury comes to a decision quickly.
Judge Taylor looks like he feels sorry for Tom.
Jem tells her that Tom will be found guilty.
Which of the following is
not one of the “baby steps” Miss Maudie talks about in Chapter 22?
Taylor names Atticus as Tom’s defender.
Tom is found guilty by a jury of his “peers.”
The jury deliberates for a long time.
Heck Tate testifies honestly about the case.
How is coming trouble foreshadowed at the end of Chapter 22?
Miss Maudie gives the kids some cake.
Food is delivered to the Finch house.
Dill says that some Maycombians should ride broomsticks.
Bob Ewell spits in Atticus’s face and threatens him.
Which sentence is written correctly?
Our Siamese cat Lucky is a finicky eater she will neither eat dried food nor drink cold milk.
Our siamese cat, lucky, is a finicky eater. She will neither eat dried food nor drink cold milk.
Our Siamese cat, Lucky, is a finicky eater; she will neither eat dried food nor drink cold milk.
Our Siamese cat, Lucky, is a finicky eater, she will neither eat dried food nor drink cold milk.
What does the bird in the play “Trifles” symbolize, and how is it an apt (good) symbol?
The bird symbolizes the true spirit of the probable murderer of John Wright: his wife, Mrs. Wright. As Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters deduce, John Wright kept his wife “caged up” (p. 636) in their home, and she formerly had a beautiful singing voice. The symbol is not only apt because of these similarities between the woman and her pet but because when John Wright literally killed the bird, he figuratively killed the last bit of joy in his oppressed wife’s married life.
The bird symbolizes the true spirit of John Wright. As the author makes clear, John Wright feels trapped by his nagging wife, and he escapes her by killing himself. The symbol is not only apt because of the similarity between the husband feeling “caged” like a bird (pg. 636) but also by his wife’s voice sounding like that of a cawing crow.
The bird symbolizes the true spirit of the probable murderer of John Wright: his neighbor, Lewis Hale. As the text states, John Wright kept his wife “caged up” (p. 636) in their home, and she formerly had a beautiful singing voice. Lewis Hale observed John’s cruel actions in caging his wife’s body and soul. He kills John Wright and prepares to turn himself in: trading his freedom for hers. The symbol is not only apt because of Mrs. Wright’s being caged and her having a wonderful singing voice, but also because Lewis Hale flies willingly to her defence.
The bird symbolizes the true spirit of the probable murderer of John Wright: his neighbor, Mrs. Hale. As Mrs. Peters deduces, everyone in the neighborhood preferred Mrs. Wright’s preserves to hers. The symbol is not only apt because birds love preserves but also because when Mrs. Wright kills John Hale for buying the fruit, she sets her artistic and creative spirit free.
What are the most important parts of Sheriff Heck Tate’s, Bob Ewell’s, Mayella Ewell’s, and Tom Robinson’s testimonies during the trial? Quote major elements from each of these character’s testimonies and explain why they are important.
The four witnesses at Tom Robinson’s trial--Sherriff Heck Tate, Bob Ewell, Mayella Ewell, and Tom Robinson--each reveal some crucial facts about the purported rape and beating during their respective testimonies. Heck Tate begins the testimony by stating that Mayella was beaten around her “‘right eye’”(p. 225) and that there “‘were definite finger marks on her gullet--’”(p. 226). This would seem to indicate that a person with two capable hands and a dominant left hand beat and attempted to strangle her. As Mr. Bob Ewell then indicates, “‘I can use one hand as good as the other.’” (p. 238). This admission, along with his demonstrated left-handed dominance, make him a viable suspect in the physical attack on his daughter. Mayella fails to support her father’s innocence when she testifies, “‘My paw’s never touched a hair o’ my head’” (p. 246) This pat and seemingly coached answer only serves to make the older Ewell look even more guilty. Finally, Tom Robinson provides reinforcement for Bob Ewell as the attacker of his daughter when he repeats the last thing he heard before he ran from the Ewell shack. The accused man reports that Mr. Ewell yelled, “‘...ya goddamn whore I’ll kill ya’” (p. 260) at his daughter. It isn’t difficult to imagine that the man followed up on his threat of physical violence with actual physical violence. Surely, if the jury members hearing the case weigh the four pieces of testimony impartially, an angry (and probably drunk) Mr. Ewell is the more likely attacker than the crippled and frightened fieldhand, Tom Robinson.
The four witnesses at Tom Robinson’s trial--Sherriff Heck Tate, Bob Ewell, Mayella Ewell, and Tom Robinson--each reveal some crucial facts about the purported rape and beating during their respective testimonies. Heck Tate begins the testimony by stating that Mayella was beaten around her “‘left eye’” (p. 225) and that there “‘were definite finger marks on her gullet--’”(p. 226). This would seem to indicate that a person with two capable hands and a dominant right hand beat and attempted to strangle her. As Mr. Bob Ewell then indicates, “‘I can use one hand as good as the other.’” (p. 238). This admission, along with his demonstrated right-handed dominance, makes him a viable suspect in the physical attack on his daughter. Mayella supports her father’s innocence when she testifies, “‘My paw’s never touched a hair o’ my head’” (p. 246). This makes the older Ewell look innocent. Her testimony gives jurors a reason to convict Tom Robinson. Tom Robinson, though, provides reinforcement for Bob Ewell as the attacker of his daughter when he repeats the last thing he heard before he ran from the Ewell shack. The accused man reports that Mr. Ewell yelled, “‘...ya goddamn whore I’ll kill ya’” (p. 260) at his daughter. It isn’t difficult to imagine that the man followed up on his threat of physical violence with actual physical violence. Surely, if the jury members hearing the case weigh the four pieces of testimony impartially, an angry (and probably drunk) Mr. Ewell is the more likely attacker than the crippled and frightened fieldhand, Tom Robinson.
The four witnesses at Tom Robinson’s trial--Sherriff Heck Tate, Bob Ewell, Mayella Ewell, and Tom Robinson--each reveal some crucial facts about the purported rape and beating during their respective testimonies. Heck Tate begins the testimony by stating that Mayella was kicked—that there “‘were definite bruises on her body’” (p. 226). This would seem to indicate that a person with two strong feet had attempted to beat her. Mr. Bob Ewell indicates, “‘Tom Robinson has strong legs; he don’t need two good arms to rape nobody’” (p. 238). This statement makes Tom a viable suspect in the physical attack on Mayella. Mayella supports her father’s innocence when she testifies, “‘My paw’s never touched a hair o’ my head’” (p. 246). This answer only serves to make Tom look even more guilty. Finally, Tom Robinson provides reinforcement for himself as the attacker when he repeats the last thing he heard before he ran from the Ewell shack. The accused man reports that Mr. Ewell yelled, “‘...ya goddamn whore I’ll kill ya’” (p. 260) at his daughter. It is difficult to imagine a father saying such a thing to his own daughter. Surely, if the jury members hearing the case weigh the four pieces of testimony impartially, the fieldhand Tom Robinson is the more likely attacker than the feeble drunk Mr. Ewell.
The four witnesses at Tom Robinson’s trial--Sherriff Heck Tate, Bob Ewell, Mayella Ewell, and Tom Robinson--each reveal some crucial facts about the purported rape and beating during their respective testimonies. Heck Tate begins the testimony by stating that Mayella was beaten—that there “‘were definite bruises on her body’” (p. 226). This would seem to indicate that a strong person had attempted to beat her. Mr. Bob Ewell indicates, “‘Tom Robinson is a strong fieldhand; he don’t need two good arms to rape nobody’” (p. 238). This statement makes Tom a viable suspect in the physical attack on Mayella. Mayella supports her father’s innocence when she testifies, “‘My paw’s never touched a hair o’ my head’” (p. 246). This answer only serves to make Tom look even guiltier. Finally, Tom Robinson provides reinforcement for himself as the attacker when he repeats the last thing he heard before he ran from the Ewell shack. The accused man reports that Mr. Ewell yelled, “‘...you young woman are grounded!” (p. 260) at his daughter. It is difficult to imagine an uneducated father saying such a thing to his daughter. Surely, if the jury members hearing the case weigh the four pieces of testimony impartially, the fieldhand Tom Robinson is the more likely attacker than the feeble drunk Mr. Ewell.