LSAT Reading Comprehension Practice Test 2025

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5)  to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15)  considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20)  public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward.

In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 )owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved?

(30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said:

  (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50)  will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve.

These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.”

Questions 1 to 6

• In which one of the following cases would the owner of the property probably be most free to restrict the freedom of speech?

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5)  to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15)  considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20)  public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward.

In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 )owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved?

(30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said:

  (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50)  will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve.

These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.”

Questions 2 to 6

• A conflict between property rights and freedom of speech might arise in all of the following situations, EXCEPT:

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5)  to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15)  considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20)  public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward.

In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 )owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved?

(30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said:

  (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50)  will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve.

These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.”

Questions 3 to 6

• According to the passage, an owner’s freedom to deny freedom of speech on his property is determined by all of the following EXCEPT:

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5)  to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15)  considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20)  public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward.

In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 )owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved?

(30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said:

  (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50)  will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve.

These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.”

Questions 4 to 6

• We can infer from the passage that the author believes that shopping malls in America

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5)  to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15)  considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20)  public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward.

In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 )owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved?

(30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said:

  (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50)  will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve.

These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.”

Questions 5 to 6

• According to the passage, the idea that a property owner’s rights decline as the property is more used by the general public

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5)  to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15)  considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20)  public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward.

In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 )owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved?

(30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said:

  (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50)  will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve.

These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.”

Questions 6 to 6

• All other things being equal, the courts must favor

The following paired passages discuss the confusion and controversy surrounding copyright law.

Passage A

          Understanding copyright law is a little like wandering in a maze and hoping that you find the right outlet. As of 1976, the basic copyright law (and there are many (5) qualifications and exceptions) is that an original wor k is the property of the author from the time of its creation to 70 years after the author’s death, at which time it becomes part of the public domain and may be used by others. (10) For over two hundred years, copyright has protected intellectual property from unauthorized use. This encourages creators because it ensures that they control the use of their works and the profits that may (15) accrue from those works.

Then came the Internet. Is it a whole new ball game? Some people believe that anything on the Internet is in the public domain. Not true. Congress passed the (20) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and this act set standards for protecting software, written works, and music on the Internet. It also made illegal any technology used to break copyright-protection (25) devices. (One provision of the act, however, exempts Internet service providers— America Online and Earthlink are just two examples—from lawsuits based on copyright violations that occur on their networks.)

         (30) Copyright protection of material on the Internet hasn’t been completely successful. For example, book publishers complained that professors cost their industry at least $20 million a year by posting long excerpts (35) of texts on the Internet, making material free to students rather than having them buy textbooks. Cornell University was the first school to respond to textbook publishers by agreeing that legal guidelines for copyright (40) should apply to Web use. But faculty members from some schools complain that this restricts the free flow of ideas. Publishers, on the other hand, say that they must protect $3.35 billion in college textbook sales.

      (45) Copyright protection on the Internet is justified. The Internet is an impressive tool for distributing ideas, publications, music, art, and so on. But should it allow stealing? Instead, copyright laws should protect (50) intellectual property wherever it is published and distributed. These laws encourage creative thinkers, and creative thinkers help drive the United States economy. If intellectual property is protected, the Internet’s commercial (55) possibilities will be fully realized.

Passage B

      The idea that the Internet should be sub- ject to increasingly rigid copyright laws is a bad one. It’s true that not having copyright apply to the Internet means less profit for (60) some including entities such as the motion picture and recording industries, who lob- bied furiously for new copyright legislation in 1998. But the profit motive shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

      (65) The world is a different place in the twenty-first century. Accessibility and instant communication are the attributes that make the Internet such a powerful new force, and we shouldn’t interfere with this means of (70) passing information, ideas, movies, art, and music from person to person around the world. Traditional barriers such as copyright laws don’t belong. If copyright laws are strictly enforced on the Internet—and it is (75) doubtful whether they even can be we could end up being unable to send a copy of our favorite poem or short story to a friend without risking a lawsuit.

      (80) What about the concept of “fair use,” which is part of the existing copyright laws? “Fair use” is meant to protect the financial stake of creators and publishers while allowing a limited use of material for primarily educational or artistic purposes, as for example, (85) when reviewers quote passages from works they review. Unfortunately, according to Kenneth D. Crews, a law professor at Indiana University and director of its Copyright Management Center, fair use is an (90) “inherently flexible doctrine. It can be interpreted differently by different courts under the same circumstances.” Copyright law doesn’t state where fair use ends and where copyright infringement begins. It isn’t hard to (95) imagine an endless stream of lawsuits.

     Recently the Australian government announced that it was planning to update their copyright law to keep up with the changing digital landscape. The head of public (100) policy at Google, the giant Internet search engine, took issue with the proposed changes. If proposed new Australian copyright laws were to be adopted, Google warned, copyright owners could take action (105) against search engines for caching and archiving material. This would “condemn the Australian public to the pre-Internet era.” “Given the vast size of the Internet it is impossible for a search engine to contact (110) personally each owner of a web page to determine whether the owner desires its web page to be searched, indexed or cached,” Google wrote in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  (115) Google’s point about the proposed Australian update illustrates only one of many problems with stricter copyright laws on the Internet. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is inimical to the (120) Internet.

Questions 7 to 13

• The authors of Passage A and Passage B would most likely agree with which of the following statements?

The following paired passages discuss the confusion and controversy surrounding copyright law.

Passage A

          Understanding copyright law is a little like wandering in a maze and hoping that you find the right outlet. As of 1976, the basic copyright law (and there are many (5) qualifications and exceptions) is that an original wor k is the property of the author from the time of its creation to 70 years after the author’s death, at which time it becomes part of the public domain and may be used by others. (10) For over two hundred years, copyright has protected intellectual property from unauthorized use. This encourages creators because it ensures that they control the use of their works and the profits that may (15) accrue from those works.

Then came the Internet. Is it a whole new ball game? Some people believe that anything on the Internet is in the public domain. Not true. Congress passed the (20) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and this act set standards for protecting software, written works, and music on the Internet. It also made illegal any technology used to break copyright-protection (25) devices. (One provision of the act, however, exempts Internet service providers— America Online and Earthlink are just two examples—from lawsuits based on copyright violations that occur on their networks.)

         (30) Copyright protection of material on the Internet hasn’t been completely successful. For example, book publishers complained that professors cost their industry at least $20 million a year by posting long excerpts (35) of texts on the Internet, making material free to students rather than having them buy textbooks. Cornell University was the first school to respond to textbook publishers by agreeing that legal guidelines for copyright (40) should apply to Web use. But faculty members from some schools complain that this restricts the free flow of ideas. Publishers, on the other hand, say that they must protect $3.35 billion in college textbook sales.

      (45) Copyright protection on the Internet is justified. The Internet is an impressive tool for distributing ideas, publications, music, art, and so on. But should it allow stealing? Instead, copyright laws should protect (50) intellectual property wherever it is published and distributed. These laws encourage creative thinkers, and creative thinkers help drive the United States economy. If intellectual property is protected, the Internet’s commercial (55) possibilities will be fully realized.

Passage B

      The idea that the Internet should be sub- ject to increasingly rigid copyright laws is a bad one. It’s true that not having copyright apply to the Internet means less profit for (60) some including entities such as the motion picture and recording industries, who lob- bied furiously for new copyright legislation in 1998. But the profit motive shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

      (65) The world is a different place in the twenty-first century. Accessibility and instant communication are the attributes that make the Internet such a powerful new force, and we shouldn’t interfere with this means of (70) passing information, ideas, movies, art, and music from person to person around the world. Traditional barriers such as copyright laws don’t belong. If copyright laws are strictly enforced on the Internet—and it is (75) doubtful whether they even can be we could end up being unable to send a copy of our favorite poem or short story to a friend without risking a lawsuit.

      (80) What about the concept of “fair use,” which is part of the existing copyright laws? “Fair use” is meant to protect the financial stake of creators and publishers while allowing a limited use of material for primarily educational or artistic purposes, as for example, (85) when reviewers quote passages from works they review. Unfortunately, according to Kenneth D. Crews, a law professor at Indiana University and director of its Copyright Management Center, fair use is an (90) “inherently flexible doctrine. It can be interpreted differently by different courts under the same circumstances.” Copyright law doesn’t state where fair use ends and where copyright infringement begins. It isn’t hard to (95) imagine an endless stream of lawsuits.

     Recently the Australian government announced that it was planning to update their copyright law to keep up with the changing digital landscape. The head of public (100) policy at Google, the giant Internet search engine, took issue with the proposed changes. If proposed new Australian copyright laws were to be adopted, Google warned, copyright owners could take action (105) against search engines for caching and archiving material. This would “condemn the Australian public to the pre-Internet era.” “Given the vast size of the Internet it is impossible for a search engine to contact (110) personally each owner of a web page to determine whether the owner desires its web page to be searched, indexed or cached,” Google wrote in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  (115) Google’s point about the proposed Australian update illustrates only one of many problems with stricter copyright laws on the Internet. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is inimical to the (120) Internet.

Questions 8 to 13

• Which of the following statements best characterizes the main difference between the arguments in Passage A and B?

The following paired passages discuss the confusion and controversy surrounding copyright law.

Passage A

          Understanding copyright law is a little like wandering in a maze and hoping that you find the right outlet. As of 1976, the basic copyright law (and there are many (5) qualifications and exceptions) is that an original wor k is the property of the author from the time of its creation to 70 years after the author’s death, at which time it becomes part of the public domain and may be used by others. (10) For over two hundred years, copyright has protected intellectual property from unauthorized use. This encourages creators because it ensures that they control the use of their works and the profits that may (15) accrue from those works.

Then came the Internet. Is it a whole new ball game? Some people believe that anything on the Internet is in the public domain. Not true. Congress passed the (20) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and this act set standards for protecting software, written works, and music on the Internet. It also made illegal any technology used to break copyright-protection (25) devices. (One provision of the act, however, exempts Internet service providers— America Online and Earthlink are just two examples—from lawsuits based on copyright violations that occur on their networks.)

         (30) Copyright protection of material on the Internet hasn’t been completely successful. For example, book publishers complained that professors cost their industry at least $20 million a year by posting long excerpts (35) of texts on the Internet, making material free to students rather than having them buy textbooks. Cornell University was the first school to respond to textbook publishers by agreeing that legal guidelines for copyright (40) should apply to Web use. But faculty members from some schools complain that this restricts the free flow of ideas. Publishers, on the other hand, say that they must protect $3.35 billion in college textbook sales.

      (45) Copyright protection on the Internet is justified. The Internet is an impressive tool for distributing ideas, publications, music, art, and so on. But should it allow stealing? Instead, copyright laws should protect (50) intellectual property wherever it is published and distributed. These laws encourage creative thinkers, and creative thinkers help drive the United States economy. If intellectual property is protected, the Internet’s commercial (55) possibilities will be fully realized.

Passage B

      The idea that the Internet should be sub- ject to increasingly rigid copyright laws is a bad one. It’s true that not having copyright apply to the Internet means less profit for (60) some including entities such as the motion picture and recording industries, who lob- bied furiously for new copyright legislation in 1998. But the profit motive shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

      (65) The world is a different place in the twenty-first century. Accessibility and instant communication are the attributes that make the Internet such a powerful new force, and we shouldn’t interfere with this means of (70) passing information, ideas, movies, art, and music from person to person around the world. Traditional barriers such as copyright laws don’t belong. If copyright laws are strictly enforced on the Internet—and it is (75) doubtful whether they even can be we could end up being unable to send a copy of our favorite poem or short story to a friend without risking a lawsuit.

      (80) What about the concept of “fair use,” which is part of the existing copyright laws? “Fair use” is meant to protect the financial stake of creators and publishers while allowing a limited use of material for primarily educational or artistic purposes, as for example, (85) when reviewers quote passages from works they review. Unfortunately, according to Kenneth D. Crews, a law professor at Indiana University and director of its Copyright Management Center, fair use is an (90) “inherently flexible doctrine. It can be interpreted differently by different courts under the same circumstances.” Copyright law doesn’t state where fair use ends and where copyright infringement begins. It isn’t hard to (95) imagine an endless stream of lawsuits.

     Recently the Australian government announced that it was planning to update their copyright law to keep up with the changing digital landscape. The head of public (100) policy at Google, the giant Internet search engine, took issue with the proposed changes. If proposed new Australian copyright laws were to be adopted, Google warned, copyright owners could take action (105) against search engines for caching and archiving material. This would “condemn the Australian public to the pre-Internet era.” “Given the vast size of the Internet it is impossible for a search engine to contact (110) personally each owner of a web page to determine whether the owner desires its web page to be searched, indexed or cached,” Google wrote in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  (115) Google’s point about the proposed Australian update illustrates only one of many problems with stricter copyright laws on the Internet. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is inimical to the (120) Internet.

Questions 9 to 13

• The author of Passage B would be most likely to identify which of the following as the basis for the argument set forth in Passage A?

The following paired passages discuss the confusion and controversy surrounding copyright law.

Passage A

          Understanding copyright law is a little like wandering in a maze and hoping that you find the right outlet. As of 1976, the basic copyright law (and there are many (5) qualifications and exceptions) is that an original wor k is the property of the author from the time of its creation to 70 years after the author’s death, at which time it becomes part of the public domain and may be used by others. (10) For over two hundred years, copyright has protected intellectual property from unauthorized use. This encourages creators because it ensures that they control the use of their works and the profits that may (15) accrue from those works.

Then came the Internet. Is it a whole new ball game? Some people believe that anything on the Internet is in the public domain. Not true. Congress passed the (20) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and this act set standards for protecting software, written works, and music on the Internet. It also made illegal any technology used to break copyright-protection (25) devices. (One provision of the act, however, exempts Internet service providers— America Online and Earthlink are just two examples—from lawsuits based on copyright violations that occur on their networks.)

         (30) Copyright protection of material on the Internet hasn’t been completely successful. For example, book publishers complained that professors cost their industry at least $20 million a year by posting long excerpts (35) of texts on the Internet, making material free to students rather than having them buy textbooks. Cornell University was the first school to respond to textbook publishers by agreeing that legal guidelines for copyright (40) should apply to Web use. But faculty members from some schools complain that this restricts the free flow of ideas. Publishers, on the other hand, say that they must protect $3.35 billion in college textbook sales.

      (45) Copyright protection on the Internet is justified. The Internet is an impressive tool for distributing ideas, publications, music, art, and so on. But should it allow stealing? Instead, copyright laws should protect (50) intellectual property wherever it is published and distributed. These laws encourage creative thinkers, and creative thinkers help drive the United States economy. If intellectual property is protected, the Internet’s commercial (55) possibilities will be fully realized.

Passage B

      The idea that the Internet should be sub- ject to increasingly rigid copyright laws is a bad one. It’s true that not having copyright apply to the Internet means less profit for (60) some including entities such as the motion picture and recording industries, who lob- bied furiously for new copyright legislation in 1998. But the profit motive shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

      (65) The world is a different place in the twenty-first century. Accessibility and instant communication are the attributes that make the Internet such a powerful new force, and we shouldn’t interfere with this means of (70) passing information, ideas, movies, art, and music from person to person around the world. Traditional barriers such as copyright laws don’t belong. If copyright laws are strictly enforced on the Internet—and it is (75) doubtful whether they even can be we could end up being unable to send a copy of our favorite poem or short story to a friend without risking a lawsuit.

      (80) What about the concept of “fair use,” which is part of the existing copyright laws? “Fair use” is meant to protect the financial stake of creators and publishers while allowing a limited use of material for primarily educational or artistic purposes, as for example, (85) when reviewers quote passages from works they review. Unfortunately, according to Kenneth D. Crews, a law professor at Indiana University and director of its Copyright Management Center, fair use is an (90) “inherently flexible doctrine. It can be interpreted differently by different courts under the same circumstances.” Copyright law doesn’t state where fair use ends and where copyright infringement begins. It isn’t hard to (95) imagine an endless stream of lawsuits.

     Recently the Australian government announced that it was planning to update their copyright law to keep up with the changing digital landscape. The head of public (100) policy at Google, the giant Internet search engine, took issue with the proposed changes. If proposed new Australian copyright laws were to be adopted, Google warned, copyright owners could take action (105) against search engines for caching and archiving material. This would “condemn the Australian public to the pre-Internet era.” “Given the vast size of the Internet it is impossible for a search engine to contact (110) personally each owner of a web page to determine whether the owner desires its web page to be searched, indexed or cached,” Google wrote in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  (115) Google’s point about the proposed Australian update illustrates only one of many problems with stricter copyright laws on the Internet. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is inimical to the (120) Internet.

Questions 10 to 13

• According to Passage A, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

The following paired passages discuss the confusion and controversy surrounding copyright law.

Passage A

          Understanding copyright law is a little like wandering in a maze and hoping that you find the right outlet. As of 1976, the basic copyright law (and there are many (5) qualifications and exceptions) is that an original wor k is the property of the author from the time of its creation to 70 years after the author’s death, at which time it becomes part of the public domain and may be used by others. (10) For over two hundred years, copyright has protected intellectual property from unauthorized use. This encourages creators because it ensures that they control the use of their works and the profits that may (15) accrue from those works.

Then came the Internet. Is it a whole new ball game? Some people believe that anything on the Internet is in the public domain. Not true. Congress passed the (20) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and this act set standards for protecting software, written works, and music on the Internet. It also made illegal any technology used to break copyright-protection (25) devices. (One provision of the act, however, exempts Internet service providers— America Online and Earthlink are just two examples—from lawsuits based on copyright violations that occur on their networks.)

         (30) Copyright protection of material on the Internet hasn’t been completely successful. For example, book publishers complained that professors cost their industry at least $20 million a year by posting long excerpts (35) of texts on the Internet, making material free to students rather than having them buy textbooks. Cornell University was the first school to respond to textbook publishers by agreeing that legal guidelines for copyright (40) should apply to Web use. But faculty members from some schools complain that this restricts the free flow of ideas. Publishers, on the other hand, say that they must protect $3.35 billion in college textbook sales.

      (45) Copyright protection on the Internet is justified. The Internet is an impressive tool for distributing ideas, publications, music, art, and so on. But should it allow stealing? Instead, copyright laws should protect (50) intellectual property wherever it is published and distributed. These laws encourage creative thinkers, and creative thinkers help drive the United States economy. If intellectual property is protected, the Internet’s commercial (55) possibilities will be fully realized.

Passage B

      The idea that the Internet should be sub- ject to increasingly rigid copyright laws is a bad one. It’s true that not having copyright apply to the Internet means less profit for (60) some including entities such as the motion picture and recording industries, who lob- bied furiously for new copyright legislation in 1998. But the profit motive shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

      (65) The world is a different place in the twenty-first century. Accessibility and instant communication are the attributes that make the Internet such a powerful new force, and we shouldn’t interfere with this means of (70) passing information, ideas, movies, art, and music from person to person around the world. Traditional barriers such as copyright laws don’t belong. If copyright laws are strictly enforced on the Internet—and it is (75) doubtful whether they even can be we could end up being unable to send a copy of our favorite poem or short story to a friend without risking a lawsuit.

      (80) What about the concept of “fair use,” which is part of the existing copyright laws? “Fair use” is meant to protect the financial stake of creators and publishers while allowing a limited use of material for primarily educational or artistic purposes, as for example, (85) when reviewers quote passages from works they review. Unfortunately, according to Kenneth D. Crews, a law professor at Indiana University and director of its Copyright Management Center, fair use is an (90) “inherently flexible doctrine. It can be interpreted differently by different courts under the same circumstances.” Copyright law doesn’t state where fair use ends and where copyright infringement begins. It isn’t hard to (95) imagine an endless stream of lawsuits.

     Recently the Australian government announced that it was planning to update their copyright law to keep up with the changing digital landscape. The head of public (100) policy at Google, the giant Internet search engine, took issue with the proposed changes. If proposed new Australian copyright laws were to be adopted, Google warned, copyright owners could take action (105) against search engines for caching and archiving material. This would “condemn the Australian public to the pre-Internet era.” “Given the vast size of the Internet it is impossible for a search engine to contact (110) personally each owner of a web page to determine whether the owner desires its web page to be searched, indexed or cached,” Google wrote in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  (115) Google’s point about the proposed Australian update illustrates only one of many problems with stricter copyright laws on the Internet. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is inimical to the (120) Internet.

Questions 11 to 13

• In line 112, which is the best meaning for the word cached?

The following paired passages discuss the confusion and controversy surrounding copyright law.

Passage A

          Understanding copyright law is a little like wandering in a maze and hoping that you find the right outlet. As of 1976, the basic copyright law (and there are many (5) qualifications and exceptions) is that an original wor k is the property of the author from the time of its creation to 70 years after the author’s death, at which time it becomes part of the public domain and may be used by others. (10) For over two hundred years, copyright has protected intellectual property from unauthorized use. This encourages creators because it ensures that they control the use of their works and the profits that may (15) accrue from those works.

Then came the Internet. Is it a whole new ball game? Some people believe that anything on the Internet is in the public domain. Not true. Congress passed the (20) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and this act set standards for protecting software, written works, and music on the Internet. It also made illegal any technology used to break copyright-protection (25) devices. (One provision of the act, however, exempts Internet service providers— America Online and Earthlink are just two examples—from lawsuits based on copyright violations that occur on their networks.)

         (30) Copyright protection of material on the Internet hasn’t been completely successful. For example, book publishers complained that professors cost their industry at least $20 million a year by posting long excerpts (35) of texts on the Internet, making material free to students rather than having them buy textbooks. Cornell University was the first school to respond to textbook publishers by agreeing that legal guidelines for copyright (40) should apply to Web use. But faculty members from some schools complain that this restricts the free flow of ideas. Publishers, on the other hand, say that they must protect $3.35 billion in college textbook sales.

      (45) Copyright protection on the Internet is justified. The Internet is an impressive tool for distributing ideas, publications, music, art, and so on. But should it allow stealing? Instead, copyright laws should protect (50) intellectual property wherever it is published and distributed. These laws encourage creative thinkers, and creative thinkers help drive the United States economy. If intellectual property is protected, the Internet’s commercial (55) possibilities will be fully realized.

Passage B

      The idea that the Internet should be sub- ject to increasingly rigid copyright laws is a bad one. It’s true that not having copyright apply to the Internet means less profit for (60) some including entities such as the motion picture and recording industries, who lob- bied furiously for new copyright legislation in 1998. But the profit motive shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

      (65) The world is a different place in the twenty-first century. Accessibility and instant communication are the attributes that make the Internet such a powerful new force, and we shouldn’t interfere with this means of (70) passing information, ideas, movies, art, and music from person to person around the world. Traditional barriers such as copyright laws don’t belong. If copyright laws are strictly enforced on the Internet—and it is (75) doubtful whether they even can be we could end up being unable to send a copy of our favorite poem or short story to a friend without risking a lawsuit.

      (80) What about the concept of “fair use,” which is part of the existing copyright laws? “Fair use” is meant to protect the financial stake of creators and publishers while allowing a limited use of material for primarily educational or artistic purposes, as for example, (85) when reviewers quote passages from works they review. Unfortunately, according to Kenneth D. Crews, a law professor at Indiana University and director of its Copyright Management Center, fair use is an (90) “inherently flexible doctrine. It can be interpreted differently by different courts under the same circumstances.” Copyright law doesn’t state where fair use ends and where copyright infringement begins. It isn’t hard to (95) imagine an endless stream of lawsuits.

     Recently the Australian government announced that it was planning to update their copyright law to keep up with the changing digital landscape. The head of public (100) policy at Google, the giant Internet search engine, took issue with the proposed changes. If proposed new Australian copyright laws were to be adopted, Google warned, copyright owners could take action (105) against search engines for caching and archiving material. This would “condemn the Australian public to the pre-Internet era.” “Given the vast size of the Internet it is impossible for a search engine to contact (110) personally each owner of a web page to determine whether the owner desires its web page to be searched, indexed or cached,” Google wrote in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  (115) Google’s point about the proposed Australian update illustrates only one of many problems with stricter copyright laws on the Internet. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is inimical to the (120) Internet.

Questions 12 to 13

• In line 119, the word “inimical” probably means

The following paired passages discuss the confusion and controversy surrounding copyright law.

Passage A

          Understanding copyright law is a little like wandering in a maze and hoping that you find the right outlet. As of 1976, the basic copyright law (and there are many (5) qualifications and exceptions) is that an original wor k is the property of the author from the time of its creation to 70 years after the author’s death, at which time it becomes part of the public domain and may be used by others. (10) For over two hundred years, copyright has protected intellectual property from unauthorized use. This encourages creators because it ensures that they control the use of their works and the profits that may (15) accrue from those works.

Then came the Internet. Is it a whole new ball game? Some people believe that anything on the Internet is in the public domain. Not true. Congress passed the (20) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and this act set standards for protecting software, written works, and music on the Internet. It also made illegal any technology used to break copyright-protection (25) devices. (One provision of the act, however, exempts Internet service providers— America Online and Earthlink are just two examples—from lawsuits based on copyright violations that occur on their networks.)

         (30) Copyright protection of material on the Internet hasn’t been completely successful. For example, book publishers complained that professors cost their industry at least $20 million a year by posting long excerpts (35) of texts on the Internet, making material free to students rather than having them buy textbooks. Cornell University was the first school to respond to textbook publishers by agreeing that legal guidelines for copyright (40) should apply to Web use. But faculty members from some schools complain that this restricts the free flow of ideas. Publishers, on the other hand, say that they must protect $3.35 billion in college textbook sales.

      (45) Copyright protection on the Internet is justified. The Internet is an impressive tool for distributing ideas, publications, music, art, and so on. But should it allow stealing? Instead, copyright laws should protect (50) intellectual property wherever it is published and distributed. These laws encourage creative thinkers, and creative thinkers help drive the United States economy. If intellectual property is protected, the Internet’s commercial (55) possibilities will be fully realized.

Passage B

      The idea that the Internet should be sub- ject to increasingly rigid copyright laws is a bad one. It’s true that not having copyright apply to the Internet means less profit for (60) some including entities such as the motion picture and recording industries, who lob- bied furiously for new copyright legislation in 1998. But the profit motive shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

      (65) The world is a different place in the twenty-first century. Accessibility and instant communication are the attributes that make the Internet such a powerful new force, and we shouldn’t interfere with this means of (70) passing information, ideas, movies, art, and music from person to person around the world. Traditional barriers such as copyright laws don’t belong. If copyright laws are strictly enforced on the Internet—and it is (75) doubtful whether they even can be we could end up being unable to send a copy of our favorite poem or short story to a friend without risking a lawsuit.

      (80) What about the concept of “fair use,” which is part of the existing copyright laws? “Fair use” is meant to protect the financial stake of creators and publishers while allowing a limited use of material for primarily educational or artistic purposes, as for example, (85) when reviewers quote passages from works they review. Unfortunately, according to Kenneth D. Crews, a law professor at Indiana University and director of its Copyright Management Center, fair use is an (90) “inherently flexible doctrine. It can be interpreted differently by different courts under the same circumstances.” Copyright law doesn’t state where fair use ends and where copyright infringement begins. It isn’t hard to (95) imagine an endless stream of lawsuits.

     Recently the Australian government announced that it was planning to update their copyright law to keep up with the changing digital landscape. The head of public (100) policy at Google, the giant Internet search engine, took issue with the proposed changes. If proposed new Australian copyright laws were to be adopted, Google warned, copyright owners could take action (105) against search engines for caching and archiving material. This would “condemn the Australian public to the pre-Internet era.” “Given the vast size of the Internet it is impossible for a search engine to contact (110) personally each owner of a web page to determine whether the owner desires its web page to be searched, indexed or cached,” Google wrote in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  (115) Google’s point about the proposed Australian update illustrates only one of many problems with stricter copyright laws on the Internet. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is inimical to the (120) Internet.

Questions 13 to 13

• According to Passage B, Google’s negative response to the Australian government’s proposed changes to Internet copyright laws was in part based on the

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 14

• We can infer from the passage that the author is probably

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 15

• According to the passage, which one of the following is likely to have contributed to the increasing popularity of fictional history?

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 16

• The author’s attitude toward fictional history can best be summarized in which one of the following statements?

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 17

• Of the following, which one would the author consider most likely to cause a reader to confuse fact and fiction?

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 18

• The function of the second paragraph of the passage is to

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 19

• According to the passage, the author would agree with all of the following statements EXCEPT:

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 20

• The author’s attitude about the issue of fiction and history is presented most clearly in

         Much as they may deplore the fact, historians have no monopoly on the past and no franchise as its privileged interpreters to the public. It may have been different once, but there can no longer be any doubt about the relegation of the historian to a back seat. Far surpassing works of history, as measured by the size of their public and the influence they exert, are the novel, works for the stage, the screen, and television. It is mainly from these sources that millions who never open a history book derive such conceptions, interpretations, convictions, or fantasies as they have about the past. Whatever gives shape to popular conceptions of the past is of concern to historians, and this surely includes fiction.

        Broadly speaking, two types of fiction deal with the past—historical fiction and fictional history. The more common of the two is historical fiction, which places fictional characters and events in a more or less authentic historical background. Examples range from War and Peace to Gone With the Wind. Since all but a few novelists must place their fictional characters in some period, nearly all fiction can be thought of as in some degree historical. But the term is applied as a rule only to novels in which historical events figure prominently. Fictional history, on the other hand, portrays and focuses attention upon real historical figures and events, but with the license of the novelist to imagine and invent. It has yet to produce anything approaching Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some fictional history makes use of invented characters and events, and historical fiction at times mixes up fictional and nonfictional characters. As a result the two genres overlap sometimes, but not often enough to make the distinction unimportant.

        Of the two, it is fictional history that is the greater source of mischief, for it is here that fabrication and fact, fiction and nonfiction, are most likely to be mixed and confused. Of course, historians themselves sometimes mix fact with fancy, but it is a rare one who does it consciously or deliberately, and he knows very well that if discovered he stands convicted of betraying his calling. The writer of fictional history, on the other hand, does this as a matter of course and with no compunction whatever. The production and consumption of fictional history appear to be growing of late. Part of the explanation of this is probably the fragmentation of history by professionals, their retreat into specializations, their abandonment of the narrative style, and with it the traditional patronage of lay readers. Fictional history has expanded to fill the gap thus created but has at the same time gone further to create a much larger readership than history books ever had.

Question: 21

• The tone of this passage could best be described as

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 22

• Which one of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 23

• In the first paragraph, the effect of the metaphors “à la carte/fixed menu” and “free enterprise/one-party state” is to

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 24

• The central contrast between an “à la carte” religion and a “fixed menu” religion is best expressed as

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 25

• To develop his points, the author uses all of the following methods EXCEPT:

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 26

• From information in the passage, we can infer which one of the following would be true under Greek and Roman paganism?

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 27

• According to the author, why have some historians assumed that the Greeks and Romans were indifferent to man’s moral behavior?

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 28

• The passage attributes the religious tolerance under paganism to the fact that

       The paganism of the Greeks and Romans, though a religion without salvation or afterlife, was not necessarily indifferent to man’s moral behavior. What has misled some historians is that this religion, without theology or church, was, if I may put it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religion with a fixed menu. If an established church is a “one-party state,” then paganism was “free enterprise.” Each man was free to found his own temple and preach whatever god he liked, just as he might open a new inn or peddle a new product. And each man made himself the client of whichever god he chose, not necessarily his city’s favorite deity: The choice was free.

        Such freedom was possible because between what the pagans meant by “god” and what Jews, Christians, and Moslems mean, there is little in common but the name. F or the three religions of the Book, God is infinitely greater than the world which he created. He exists solely as an actor in a cosmic drama in which the salvation of humankind is played out. The pagan gods, by contrast, live their lives and are not confined to a meta- physical role. They are part of this world, one of three races that populate the earth: animals, which are neither immortal nor gifted with reason; humans, who are mortal but reasonable; and gods, who are immortal and reasonable. So true is it that the divine race is an animal genus that every god is either male or female. From this it follows that the gods of all peoples are true gods. Other nations might worship gods unknown to the Greeks and Romans, or they might worship the same gods under different names. Jupiter was Jupiter the world over, just as a lion is a lion, but he happened to be called Z eus in Greek, Taranis in Gallic, and Yao in Hebrew. The names of the gods could be translated from one language to another, just like the names of planets and other material things. Belief in alien gods foundered only where it was the product of an absurd superstition, something that smacked of a fantastic bestiary. The Romans laughed at the gods with animal bodies worshiped by the Egyptians. In the ancient world religious people were as tolerant of one another as are Hindu sects. To take a special interest in one god was not to deny the others.

      This fact was not without consequence for man’s idea of his own place in the natural order. Imagine a circle, which represents the world according to the religions of the Book. Given man’s importance in the cosmic drama, he occupies at least half the circle. What about God? He is so exalted, so awesome, that he remains far above the circle. To represent Him, draw an arrow, pointing upward from the center of the circle and mark it with the sign of infinity. Now consider the pagan world. Imagine a sort of staircase with three steps. On the lowest step stand the animals; on the next step, humans; and on the third step, the gods. In order to become a god, one did not need to rise very far. The gods stood just above humans, so that it often makes sense to translate the Latin and Greek words for “divine” as “superhuman.”

Question: 29

• The purpose of the third paragraph of the passage is to