ACT Practice Test 1 doc

ACT Practice Test 1
READING
Passage I
PROSE FICTION: This passage is an adapted
excerpt from Willa Cather’s O Pioneers! This
novel, set in the Nebraska prairie, was origi-
nally published in 1913.
Carl had changed, Alexandra felt, much
less than one might have expected. He had
not become a self-satisfied city man. There
was still something homely and wayward
and personal about him. Even his clothes [5]
were unconventional. He seemed to shrink
into himself as he used to do, as if he were
afraid of being hurt.
That evening, Carl and Alexandra were
sitting in the flower garden. The gravel paths [10]
glittered in the moonlight, and below them
the fields lay white and still.
“You know, Alexandra, I’ve been thinking
how strangely things work out. I’ve been
away engraving other people’s pictures, and [15]
you’ve stayed at home and made your own.”
Carl pointed toward the sleeping landscape.
“How in the world have you done it? How
have your neighbors done it?”
“We hadn’t much to do with it, Carl. [20]
The land pretended to be poor because
nobody knew how to work it; then, sudden-
ly, it worked itself. It woke up out of its sleep
and stretched itself, and it was so big, so

rich, that we found we were rich, just from [25]
sitting still. You remember when I began to
buy land. For years I was always squeezing
and borrowing until I was ashamed to show
my face in the banks. And then, all at once,
men began to come to me offering to lend [30]
me money! Then I built this house—for
Emil, really. I want you to see Emil, Carl. He
is different from the rest of us!”
“How different?”
“Oh, you’ll see! I’m sure it was to have [35]
children like Emil, to give them a chance,
that father left Sweden.”
“Is he going to farm here with you?”
“He shall do whatever he wants to,”
Alexandra declared. “He’s going to have a [40]
real chance; that’s what I’ve worked for!”
“How about Lou and Oscar? They’ve
done well, haven’t they?”
“Yes, very well; but they’re different,
and now that they have farms of their own I [45]
don’t see so much of them. We divided the
land equally when Lou married. They have
their own way of doing things, and they
don’t altogether like my way. Perhaps they
think me too independent. But I’ve had to [50]
think for myself for many years and am not
likely to change. On the whole, though, we
take as much comfort in each other as most
brothers and sisters do.”

Alexandra looked at Carl calmly and [55]
deliberately. “Why are you dissatisfied with
yourself?”
Her visitor winced and paused. “You
see,” he said, “measured by your standards,
I’m a failure. I couldn’t buy even one of your [60]
cornfields. I’ve enjoyed many things in New
York, but I’ve nothing to show for it.”
“But you show for it yourself, Carl. I’d
rather have had your freedom than my
land.” [65]
Carl shook his head. “Freedom so often
means that one isn’t needed. Here you have
a background of your own, you would be
missed. But in the cities there are thousands
of rolling stones like me. We’re all alike, pay- [70]
ing an extravagant rent for a few square feet
of space near the heart of things; we have no
ties, we know nobody, we own nothing.
When people die, they scarcely know where
to bury them.” [75]
Alexandra was silent. He knew that she
understood what he meant. At last she said
slowly, “And yet I would rather Emil grow
up like that than like his brothers. We pay a
high rent, too, though we pay differently. We [80]
grow hard and heavy. We don’t move lightly
and easily as you do, and our minds get stiff.
If the world were no wider than my corn-
fields, I wouldn’t feel that it was worthwhile

to work. No, I would rather have Emil like [85]
you. I felt that as soon as you came.”
1. The passage suggests that Alexandra wants Emil to:
A. eventually take over the management of her farm.
B. choose a profession other than farming.
C. grow up to be like Lou and Oscar.
D. move to New York with Carl.
2. The “high rent” mentioned in line 80 refers to:
F. the opportunity to reap great financial rewards from farming.
G. Alexandra’s observation that farming often involves risky, hazardous work.
H. Carl’s complaint about the high cost of living in the city.
J. the physical and emotional toll of Alexandra’s life on the farm.
3. Based on the passage, it is most reasonable to conclude that Carl is:
A. skeptical of Alexandra’s relationship with Lou and Oscar.
B. jealous of Alexandra’s financial success on the farm.
C. envious of Alexandra’s ties to her land and community.
D. confused about Alexandra’s plans for Emil.
4. As it is used in line 21, poor most closely means:
F. penniless.
G. deficient.
H. pitiable.
J. unhappy.
5. Lines 58-62 suggest that Carl considers himself:
A. lucky to have escaped the hardships of farm life.
B. fortunate to have met many interesting people in New York.
C. dissatisfied with the quality of life in Nebraska.
D. unable to account satisfactorily for the life he has led.
6. Alexandra’s observations of Carl in the first paragraph (lines 1-8) suggest that she is:
F. charmed by his eccentric appearance.
G. perplexed about why he has come home.

H. relieved that he seems unchanged.
J. surprised by her own lack of sympathy for him.
7. Alexandra admires Carl most for his:
A. range of worldly experience.
B. professional reputation as an artist.
C. boldness and self-confidence.
D. old-fashioned values.
8. Based on the passage, Alexandra could be most accurately characterized as:
F. independent and strong-willed.
G. faithful to her family’s traditions.
H. envious of Carl’s connections in the city.
J. intimidated by the financial risks associated with her farm.
Passage II
PROSE FICTION: This passage is an adapted
excerpt from Jane Austen’s novel Emma. In
this passage, Emma confronts a change in
her previously happy life.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever,
and rich, with a comfortable home and
happy disposition, seemed to unite some of
the best blessings of existence. She had lived
nearly twenty-one years in the world with [5]
very little to distress or vex her. She was the
youngest of the two daughters of a most
affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in
consequence of her sister’s marriage, been
mistress of his house from a very early peri- [10]
od. Her mother had died too long ago for
her to have more than an indistinct remem-
brance of her caresses, and her place had

been taken by an excellent governess who
had fallen little short of a mother in affec- [15]
tion.
Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in
Mr. Woodhouse’s family, less as a governess
than a friend, very fond of both daughters,
but particularly of Emma. Between them it [20]
was more the intimacy of sisters. Even
before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold the
nominal office of governess, the mildness of
her temper had hardly allowed her to
impose any restraint. The shadow of author- [25]
ity being now long passed away, they had
been living together as friend and friend
very mutually attached, and Emma doing
just what she liked, highly esteeming Miss
Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by [30]
her own. The real evils, indeed, of Emma’s
situation were the power of having rather
too much her own way, and a disposition to
think a little too well of herself; these were
the disadvantages which threatened alloy to [35]
her many enjoyments. The danger, however,
was at present so unperceived, that they did
not by any means rank as misfortunes with
her.
Sorrow came—a gentle sorrow—but [40]
not at all in the shape of any disagreeable
consciousness. Miss Taylor married. It was
Miss Taylor’s loss which first brought grief.

It was on the wedding-day of this beloved
friend that Emma first sat in mournful [45]
thought of any continuance. The wedding
over, and the bride-people gone, she and her
father were left to dine together, with no
prospect of a third to cheer a long evening.
Her father composed himself to sleep after [50]
dinner, as usual, and she had then only to sit
and think of what she had lost.
The marriage had every promise of
happiness for her friend. Mr. Weston was a
man of unexceptionable character, easy for- [55]
tune, suitable age, and pleasant manners.
There was some satisfaction in considering
with what self-denying, generous friendship
she had always wished and promoted the
match, but it was a black morning’s work for [60]
her. The want of Miss Taylor would be felt
every hour of every day. She recalled her
past kindness—the kindness, the affection
of sixteen years—how she had taught her
and how she had played with her from five [65]
years old—how she had devoted all her
powers to attach and amuse her in health—
and how she had nursed her through the
various illnesses of childhood. A large debt
of gratitude was owing here, but the inter- [70]
course of the last seven years, the equal foot-
ing and perfect unreserve which had soon
followed Isabella’s marriage, on their being

left to each other, was yet a dearer, tenderer
recollection. She had been a friend and [75]
companion such as few possessed: intelli-
gent, well-informed, useful, gentle, knowing
all the ways of the family, interested in all its
concerns, and peculiarly interested in her, in
every pleasure, every scheme of hers—one [80]
to whom she could speak every thought as it
arose, and who had such an affection for her
as could never find fault.
How was she to bear the change? It was
true that her friend was going only half a [85]
mile from them, but Emma was aware that
great must be the difference between a Mrs.
Weston, only half a mile from them, and a
Miss Taylor in the house. With all her
advantages, natural and domestic, she was [90]
now in great danger of suffering from intel-
lectual solitude.
9. According to the passage, what are the greatest disadvantages facing Emma?
A. Her father is not a stimulating conversationalist, and she is bored.
B. She is lonely and afraid that Mrs. Weston will not have a happy marriage.
C. She is used to having too much her way, and she thinks too highly of herself.
D. She misses the companionship of her mother, her sister, and Miss Taylor.
10. The name of Emma’s sister is:
F. Mrs. Weston.
G. Isabella.
H. Miss Taylor.
J. Mrs. Woodhouse.
11. As described in the passage, Emma’s relationship with Miss Taylor can be

characterized as:
A. similar to a mother-daughter relationship.
B. similar to the relationship of sisters or best friends.
C. weaker than Emma’s relationship with her sister.
D. stronger than Miss Taylor’s relationship with her new husband.
12. As used in line 33, disposition can most closely be defined as:
F. a tendency.
G. control.
H. placement.
J. transfer.
13. Which of the following are included in Emma’s memories of her relationship with
Miss Taylor?
I. Miss Taylor taking care of Emma during childhood illnesses
II. -Miss Taylor’s interest in all of the concerns of Emma’s family
III. -Miss Taylor teaching her mathematics
IV. -Miss Taylor scolding her for being selfish
A. I, III, and IV only
B. I and III only
C. II, III, and IV only
D. I and II only
14. It is most reasonable to infer from Emma’s realization that “great must be the
difference between a Mrs. Weston, only half a mile from them, and a Miss Taylor in the
house” (lines 87-89) that:
F. Miss Taylor will no longer be a part of Emma’s life.
G. Emma is happy about the marriage because now she will have more freedom.
H. Emma regrets that her relationship with Miss Taylor will change.
J. Emma believes that her relationship with Miss Taylor will become stronger.
15. Based on the passage, Emma could best be described as:
A. sweet and naïve.
B. self-centered and naïve.

C. self-centered and headstrong.
D. unappreciative and bitter.
16. The passage suggests that the quality Emma values most in a friend is:
F. charisma.
G. devotion.
H. honesty.
J. intelligence.
17. How does Emma view Mr. Weston?
A. She thinks that he is an excellent match, and it required considerable self-
sacrifice to not pursue him herself.
B. She considers him to be a respectable if somewhat average match for her friend.
C. She sees him as an intruder who has carried away her best friend in “a black
morning’s work” (line 60).
D. She believes he is an indulgent, easily swayed man, reminiscent of her father.
18. From the passage, it can be inferred that Emma is accustomed to:
F. behaving according to the wishes of her affectionate father.
G. taking the advice of Miss Taylor when faced with deciding upon a course of
action.
H. doing as she pleases without permission from her father or governess.
J. abiding by strict rules governing her behavior.
Passage III
SOCIAL SCIENCE: The following passage is
an adapted excerpt from “For the Love of
Language” by Geoffrey Cowley, which
appeared in the Newsweek Special 2000 Edi-
tion: Your Child.
During the third trimester of pregnan-
cy, many mothers notice that their babies
kick and wiggle in response to music or loud
noises…. Researchers at New York’s Colum-

bia Presbyterian Medical Center have found [5]
that fetuses’ heart rates drop predictably
when their mothers speak a simple phrase
(“Hello, baby”). And French scientists have
gone a step further, showing that a fetus
who’s been hearing the same sound repeat- [10]
ed (“babi, babi”) will react to a sudden
reversal of its elements (“biba, biba”). With-
in 96 hours of birth, babies distinguish their
mother tongue from a foreign language,
sucking more vigorously when they hear it [15]
spoken.
How does a child start to parse this
river of sound into meaningful units? Sim-
ple conditioning is part of the story. Anyone
bombarded by a particular language hears [20]
certain sound combinations more often
than others, and babies are quick to home in
on the most probable combinations. In one
revealing study, a team led by University of
Wisconsin psychologist Jenny Saffran famil- [25]
iarized 8-month-olds with three-syllable
nonsense words such as “bidaku” and
“padoti” by playing them in random order
on a voice synthesizer. Then the researchers
reshuffled the syllables and tested the kids [30]
again. The babies easily distinguished
bidaku and padoti not only from other non-
words like “dadobi” but also from hybrids
like “kupado,” a sequence they would have

heard on the training tape whenever “bida- [35]
KU” bumped up against “PADO-ti.” Long
before they could attach meanings to words,
these kids were processing them as discrete
units—saying, in effect, “Call me ‘pretty’ or
call me ‘baby.’ Just don’t call me ‘ty-ba.’” [40]
…Within months of their first birth-
day, most kids start attaching names to
things. And whether they’re learning Swahili
or Swedish, they go about it in much the
same way. Instead of proceeding by trial and [45]
error—unsure whether “doggie” refers to a
part of a dog, to one dog in particular or to
anything with four legs—children start with
a set of innate biases. They assume that
labels refer to wholes instead of parts (the [50]
creature, not the tail) and to classes instead
of items (all dogs, not one dog). They also
figure that one name is enough for any class
of object (if it’s a dog, it’s not a cow).… A
typical child is socking away a dozen words [55]
a day by 18 months, and they may com-
mand 2,000 of them by the age of two.
…Having acquired their words
through mimicry, they start combining
them—according to abstract rules that no [60]
one has taught them—to express their
thoughts and feelings. Their first sentences
may be crude utterances such as “Gonna
cry!” or “Uppy me!” But between 24 and 30

months, kids who have never heard of syn- [65]
tax usually start marrying noun phrases to
verb phrases to explain who did what to
whom. If they happen to speak English, they
know that “man bites dog” and “dog bites
man” tell different stories, despite their [70]
identical words.
Some scholars have argued that kids
learn to form sentences just as they learn to
perceive word boundaries—by listening for
statistical regularities in other people’s [75]
speech. Grammatical analysis doesn’t
require specialized cognitive software, they
say; it boils down to operant conditioning.
According to this argument, a baby who
encounters the sentences “the boy likes [80]
apples” and “the boy likes oranges” 50
times each will learn that the words “the,”
“boy” and “likes” are tightly correlated in
certain circumstances, whereas apples and
oranges show up only 50 percent of the [85]
time. As the baby encounters more sen-
tences, the web of associations expands,
providing more templates for original
utterances.
But recent studies suggest there is [90]
much more to the story—that children
actively seek out abstract grammatical
rules. In one clever experiment, researchers
led by New York University psychologist

Gary Marcus presented 7-month-old [95]
infants with a language problem that
couldn’t be solved by operant conditioning
alone. First the children spent two minutes
listening to a series of three-word “sen-
tences” such as “ga-ti-ga” and “li-na-li.” The [100]
“words” varied from one sentence to the
next, but the syntax didn’t: any word
appearing in the first position also
appeared in the third. After familiarizing
the children with these samples, the [105]
researchers played a different set of sen-
tences—some obeying the A-B-A rule
(“wo-fe-wo”), and some violating it (“wo-
fe-fe”). The babies had never heard any of
these new utterances, yet their attention [110]
patterns suggested that “wo-fe-wo” sound-
ed familiar while the “nongrammatical” A-
B-B sequences surprised them. The impli-
cation is that the kids weren’t merely seek-
ing out associations among “words” they’d [115]
already heard. They were spontaneously
extracting the principles governing word
order in general.
19. According to the passage, a typical two-year old:
A. is just starting to attach names to objects and people.
B. mostly speaks nonsense words like “bidaku.”
C. can have a vocabulary of 2,000 words.
D. never speaks in sentences, only in single words.
20. The results from the research described in Paragraph 2 (lines 17-40) suggest that:

F. babies younger than 12 months old are not capable of processing language.
G. babies can distinguish words as individual units before they know what those
words mean.
H. babies recognize various syllables but do not recognize changes in syllable com-
binations.
J. babies respond best to words spoken in random order.
21. From the passage, it is most reasonable to infer that children develop language skills
by:
A. acquiring words through mimicry only.
B. listening for sentence structure patterns in the speech of others.
C. mimicking words and word patterns that they hear, as well as actively learning
abstract rules about sentence structure.
D. learning how to name things by trial and error.
22. According to the passage, when children start to attach names to things, they:
F. go by trial and error.
G. assume that names refer to whole things, not parts of things.
H. also start to speak in complete sentences.
J. follow a different process depending on their culture.
23. According to the passage, before babies are a week old, they can:
A. tell the difference between their own language and a foreign language.
B. attach names to very familiar people and objects.
C. distinguish real words from nonsense words.
D. attach meaning to words that they hear repeatedly.
24. As is used in the passage, the word syntax (lines 65-66 and 102) most closely means:
F. the pattern of formation of sentences in a language.
G. a publication describing the rules governing a language.
H. the body of vocabulary used in a particular language.
J. the tense of a word.
Passage IV
SOCIAL SCIENCE: The following passage is

excerpted from a discussion of the origin of
the Cold War between the United States and
the Soviet Union.
Revisionist historians maintain that it
was within the power of the United States, in
the years during and immediately after the
Second World War, to prevent the Cold War
with the Soviet Union. Revisionists suggest [5]
that the prospect of impending conflict with
the Soviets could have been avoided in sev-
eral ways. The U.S. could have officially rec-
ognized the new Soviet sphere of influence
in Eastern Europe instead of continuing to [10]
call for self-determination in those coun-
tries. A much-needed reconstruction loan
could have helped the Soviets recover from
the war. The Americans could have sought
to assuage Soviet fears by giving up the U.S. [15]
monopoly of the atomic bomb and turning
the weapons over to an international agency
(with the stipulation that future nuclear
powers do the same).
This criticism of the post-war Ameri- [20]
can course of action fails to take into
account the political realities in America at
the time, and it unfairly condemns the
American policy-makers who did consider
each of these alternatives and found them to [25]
be unworkable. Recognition of a Soviet
Eastern Europe was out of the question.

Roosevelt had promised self-determination
to the Eastern European countries, and the
American people, having come to expect [30]
this, were furious when Stalin began to
shape his spheres of influence in the region.
The President was in particular acutely con-
scious of the millions of Polish-Americans
who would be voting in the upcoming elec- [35]
tion.
Negotiations had indeed been conduct-
ed by the administration with the Soviets
about a reconstruction loan, but the Con-
gress refused to approve it unless the Soviets [40]
made enormous concessions tantamount to
restructuring their system and withdrawing
from Eastern Europe. This, of course, made
Soviet rejection of the loan a foregone con-
clusion. As for giving up the bomb—the [45]
elected officials in Washington would have
been in deep trouble with their constituents
had that plan been carried out. Polls showed
that 82 percent of the American people
understood that other nations would devel- [50]
op bombs eventually, but that 85 percent
thought that the U.S. should retain exclusive
possession of the weapon. Policy-makers
have to abide by certain constraints in
deciding what is acceptable and what is not. [55]
They, and not historians, are in the best
position to perceive those constraints and

make the decisions.
Revisionist historians tend to eschew
this type of political explanation of Ameri- [60]
ca’s supposed failure to reach a peaceful set-
tlement with the Soviets in favor of an eco-
nomic reading of events. They point to the
fact that in the early post-war years Ameri-
can businessmen and government officials [65]
cooperated to expand American foreign
trade vigorously and to exploit investment
opportunities in many foreign countries.
In order to sustain the lucrative expansion,
revisionists assert, American policy-makers [70]
were obliged to maintain an “Open Door”
foreign policy, the object of which was to
keep all potential trade opportunities open.
Since the Soviets could jeopardize such
opportunities in Eastern Europe and else- [75]
where, they had to be opposed. Hence, the
Cold War. But if American policy-makers
were simply pawns in an economic game of
expansionist capitalism, as the revisionists
seem to think, why do the revisionists hold [80]
them responsible for not attempting to
reach an accord with the Soviets? The poli-
cy-makers, swept up by a tidal wave of cap-
italism, clearly had little control and little
choice in the matter. [85]
Even if American officials had been
free and willing to make conciliatory ges-

tures toward the Soviets, the Cold War
would not have been prevented. Overtures
of friendship would not have been recipro- [90]
cated (as far as we can judge; information
on the inner workings of the Kremlin dur-
ing that time is scanty). Soviet expert
George F. Kennan concluded that Russian
hostility could not be dampened by any [95]
effort on the part of the United States. The
political and ideological differences were
too great, and the Soviets had too long a
history of distrust of foreigners—exacer-
bated at the time by Stalin’s rampant para- [100]
noia, which infected his government—to
embark on a process of establishing trust
and peace with the United States, though it
was in their interest to do so.
25. The primary purpose of the passage is to:
A. explore a popular myth about U.S. involvement in the Cold War.
B. compare historical figures such as Roosevelt and Stalin.
C. refute a point of view about U.S. involvement in the Cold War.
D. analyze the choices made by U.S. and Soviet leaders during the Cold War.
26. Based on the passage, it is most reasonable to conclude that the author believes that:
F. the Soviets were largely to blame for the failure of conciliatory U.S. initiatives.
G. the American public was very well-informed about the incipient Cold War
situation.
H. the American public was overwhelmingly opposed to seeking peace with the
Soviets.
J. the government could not have been expected to ignore public opinion.
27. The author refers to the Polish-Americans (line 34) chiefly to illustrate that:

A. the President had an excellent rapport with ethnic minorities.
B. immigrants had fled from Eastern European countries to escape communism.
C. giving up the idea of East European self-determination would have been costly
in political terms.
D. the political landscape of the United States had changed considerably since the
President was elected.
28. As it is used in lines 8-9, recognized most nearly means:
F. identified.
G. noticed.
H. acknowledged.
J. distinguished.
29. Which of the following statements best summarizes the passage’s explanation of the
revisionist argument concerning the origin of the Cold War?
A. The Soviets were oblivious to the negative impact they had on the American
economy.
B. The economic advantage of recognizing Soviet Europe outweighed the
disadvantage of an angry public.
C. America could trade and invest with foreign countries only if it agreed to oppose
the Soviet Union.
D. American economic interests abroad would have been threatened by any Soviet
expansion.
30. In the passage, which of the following does the author provide as explanations for
U.S. involvement in the Cold War?
I. -President Roosevelt’s need to secure the votes of Polish Americans
II. -American businessmen controlling government decisions in order to open
new economic markets
III. -The Soviet Union’s distrust of foreigners
IV. -The majority of U.S. citizens wanting to provide the Soviets with a
reconstruction loan
F. I and II only

G. I and III only
H. I, II, and III only
J. I, II, III, and IV