Passage 4: Will This New U.S. Project Make the World’s Children Smarter? In paragraph 14,  the author uses the phrase “cobbles together about $150 million” to describe funding efforts. What does this figurative language suggest?

Passage 2: Over 3.6 million middle and high school students used e-cigarettes last year, up by 1.5 million from 2017. The use of Juul, the most popular brand in the country, appears to have led this alarming increase among middle and high school students. This should not be a surprise.The founders of Juul Labs say that their product is not intended for young people but was designed with the adult smoker in mind. “We want to be part of the solution to end combustible smoking, not part of a problem to attract youth, never smokers or former smokers to nicotine products,” the company says on its website.That’s important, but it misses an essential point: Based on what we know about cigarettes, the unique design of Juul may make it easier for young people to use its product, which delivers high-nicotine vapor. This is known in public health circles as “facilitating initiation.” And that’s because the blueprint for that e-cigarette could easily have been taken straight out of the tobacco industry’s playbook. The author suggests that Juul’s strategies may be similar to those of traditional tobacco companies. This comparison primarily aims to:    

Passage 4: Will This New U.S. Project Make the World’s Children Smarter?In paragraph 13, the author uses which three of the following?

Passage 3:  In 1879, on the road leading into Dodge City, there stood a sign. “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited,” it said.  The gun control ordinance was the first law passed when the city was organized in 1873. Nor was Dodge unique. Many other western towns, Wichita and Tombstone among them, had similar laws. The statutes don’t seem to have been particularly controversial. Though Dodge City was, by reputation if not always in actual fact, one of the toughest and most lawless places on the frontier, cowboys had no problem walking unarmed into its brothels and saloons. Yet in 2019, many of us feel the need to take guns into Walmart. Worse, they’re allowed to do so under permissive “open carry” laws which, in most states, give people the right to bear handguns and even long guns in public. But now Walmart is fighting back. Sort of. Last week, the giant retailer announced that it was “respectfully requesting” that people not bring guns into its stores. This, on the heels of last month’s racist mass shooting — 22 people died — at a Walmart in El Paso. Other companies, including Kroger, CVS and Walgreens, quickly followed suit. The New York Times notes that still more companies — Starbucks, Target and Chipotle among them — already had such policies in place. Most used the same word Walmart did to couch their requests: “respectfully.” To say “it’s about time” is to understate. Years of living in the shadow of massacres has left us a nation on tenterhooks, 330 million people all sharing the same case of PTSD. One recalls the panicked stampede in Times Square last month when motorcycles backfired. One observes that children are being sent back to school this year with bulletproof backpacks. And one is glad businesses are willing to “respectfully request.” But they must do more. What statement best states the central claim of the above text?

Passage 3:  In 1879, on the road leading into Dodge City, there stood a sign. “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited,” it said.  The gun control ordinance was the first law passed when the city was organized in 1873. Nor was Dodge unique. Many other western towns, Wichita and Tombstone among them, had similar laws. The statutes don’t seem to have been particularly controversial. Though Dodge City was, by reputation if not always in actual fact, one of the toughest and most lawless places on the frontier, cowboys had no problem walking unarmed into its brothels and saloons. Yet in 2019, many of us feel the need to take guns into Walmart. Worse, they’re allowed to do so under permissive “open carry” laws which, in most states, give people the right to bear handguns and even long guns in public. But now Walmart is fighting back. Sort of. Last week, the giant retailer announced that it was “respectfully requesting” that people not bring guns into its stores. This, on the heels of last month’s racist mass shooting — 22 people died — at a Walmart in El Paso. Other companies, including Kroger, CVS and Walgreens, quickly followed suit. The New York Times notes that still more companies — Starbucks, Target and Chipotle among them — already had such policies in place. Most used the same word Walmart did to couch their requests: “respectfully.” To say “it’s about time” is to understate. Years of living in the shadow of massacres has left us a nation on tenterhooks, 330 million people all sharing the same case of PTSD. One recalls the panicked stampede in Times Square last month when motorcycles backfired. One observes that children are being sent back to school this year with bulletproof backpacks. And one is glad businesses are willing to “respectfully request.” But they must do more. What statement best states the central claim of the above text?

Passage 5: The organizers of the Paris Olympic Games have outdone their predecessors in trying to make the Games the most sustainable in the decades since climate change became a concern. But with an estimated 11 million tourists converging on the City of Light for the Olympics, including 1.5 million from abroad, the Games can only be so green.On the plus side, organizers have been serious in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. They measured the expected carbon footprint of the Games, reduced emissions through energy efficiencies, limited new construction by using existing facilities, added bike lanes, minimized the use of fuel-powered generators and sourced sustainably produced goods for medals and podiums and much of the event materials.Still, international travel is a big contributor to the overall carbon impact of the Games. Organizers of the Rio Olympics in 2016 predicted that slightly more than half of the carbon emissions would come from spectators. Of that amount, 80 percent was expected to be generated by international fans traveling to and from the Games. Organizers saw a low potential to reduce those emissions and said they would need to compensate elsewhere in the preparation and running of the events.What else is to be done? If the world is serious about reducing carbon emissions, the Olympics, like so much else, will have to change even more. Jules Boykoff, who has written extensively about the Olympic Games, rightly argues in Scientific American that “the Games need to reduce their size, limit the number of tourists who travel from afar..”Thanks to television and social media, those of us who live far from the host city can still follow along in real time without traveling to the Games. Tokyo 2020, actually held in 2021, and Beijing 2022 did not have international fans because of the Covid pandemic. The planet was better off for it.In the Rio Games, organizers claimed that a “significant” part of spectator emissions, including from travel, were offset by the planting of trees, and Paris organizers hope to similarly offset emissions with reforestation and renewable energy projects. But these offsets are not a panacea.For all the efforts in Paris to reduce the carbon impact of the games, and they have been considerable, the sheer scope of future Games must be rethought. A smaller-scale Olympics wouldn’t solve everything, but it would make these events more sustainable. Which of the following are primarily used by the author to support the claim that international travel contributes significantly to the carbon emissions of the Olympics?

The scientist offered a clear ______ of the claim by presenting data that directly contradicted it.

Passage 1: International Space Station to make brilliant pass over East Coast after sunset It’s not a bird. It’s not a plane. It’s the Space Station whizzing across the sky at 17,000 mph. Looking for cool Friday night plans? How about watching the largest spacecraft ever created zip across the sky at 4.76 miles per second?The International Space Station is slated to make a bright pass over the Eastern Seaboard on Friday night, visible from cities such as Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston. In fact, anyone from Florida through Canada can enjoy the show.To make things even better, the weather is expected to be superb. Mostly clear skies will dominate the East Coast, with crisp, refreshing dryness sledging all the way down the Appalachians.For folks in Florida or Georgia, look to the south-southwest at 7:56 p.m. The space station will arc its way higher over the sky before fading off into the northeast about six minutes later. Farther north, it will be a touch later — 7:58 p.m. in D.C., 7:59 p.m. in New York, and 8 p.m. in Boston. It will be bright enough that folks in well-lit, downtown areas can enjoy the spectacle.Based on the passage, the author’s attitude toward viewing the International Space Station can best be characterized as

Passage 4: Will This New U.S. Project Make the World’s Children Smarter? In paragraph 16, Fuller says, “I think it’s opening the floodgates.”   What best describes this figurative language?

Passage 5: The organizers of the Paris Olympic Games have outdone their predecessors in trying to make the Games the most sustainable in the decades since climate change became a concern. But with an estimated 11 million tourists converging on the City of Light for the Olympics, including 1.5 million from abroad, the Games can only be so green.On the plus side, organizers have been serious in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. They measured the expected carbon footprint of the Games, reduced emissions through energy efficiencies, limited new construction by using existing facilities, added bike lanes, minimized the use of fuel-powered generators and sourced sustainably produced goods for medals and podiums and much of the event materials.Still, international travel is a big contributor to the overall carbon impact of the Games. Organizers of the Rio Olympics in 2016 predicted that slightly more than half of the carbon emissions would come from spectators. Of that amount, 80 percent was expected to be generated by international fans traveling to and from the Games. Organizers saw a low potential to reduce those emissions and said they would need to compensate elsewhere in the preparation and running of the events.What else is to be done? If the world is serious about reducing carbon emissions, the Olympics, like so much else, will have to change even more. Jules Boykoff, who has written extensively about the Olympic Games, rightly argues in Scientific American that “the Games need to reduce their size, limit the number of tourists who travel from afar..”Thanks to television and social media, those of us who live far from the host city can still follow along in real time without traveling to the Games. Tokyo 2020, actually held in 2021, and Beijing 2022 did not have international fans because of the Covid pandemic. The planet was better off for it.In the Rio Games, organizers claimed that a “significant” part of spectator emissions, including from travel, were offset by the planting of trees, and Paris organizers hope to similarly offset emissions with reforestation and renewable energy projects. But these offsets are not a panacea.For all the efforts in Paris to reduce the carbon impact of the games, and they have been considerable, the sheer scope of future Games must be rethought. A smaller-scale Olympics wouldn’t solve everything, but it would make these events more sustainable. If someone heard the author read the underlined excerpt and then responded by saying, “So you’re saying you’re glad that Covid happened?,” which logical fallacy would they be guilty of using?