Passage Excerpt from In Search of the Unknown
Excerpt from In Search of the Unknown
by Robert W. Chambers
It was at that time the policy of the trustees and officers of the Zoological Gardens neither to employ collectors nor to send out expeditions in search of specimens. The society decided to depend upon voluntary contributions, and I was always busy, part of the day, in dictating answers to correspondents who wrote offering their services as hunters of big game, collectors of all sorts of fauna, trappers, snarers, and also to those who offered specimens for sale, usually at exorbitant rates.
To the proprietors of . . . mangy lynxes, moth-eaten coyotes, and dancing bears I returned courteous but uncompromising refusals—of course, first submitting all such letters, together with my replies, to Professor Farrago.
One day towards the end of May, however, just as I was leaving Bronx Park to return to town, Professor Lesard, of the reptilian department, called out to me that Professor Farrago wanted to see me a moment; so I . . . retraced my steps to the temporary, wooden building occupied by Professor Farrago, general superintendent of the Zoological Gardens. The professor, who was sitting at his desk before a pile of letters and replies submitted for approval by me, pushed his glasses down and looked over them at me with a whimsical smile that suggested amusement, impatience, annoyance, and perhaps a faint trace of apology.
“Now, here’s a letter,” he said, with a deliberate gesture towards a sheet of paper impaled on a file—“a letter that I suppose you remember.” He disengaged the sheet of paper and handed it to me.
“Oh yes,” I replied, with a shrug; “of course the man is mistaken—or—”
“Or what?” demanded Professor Farrago, tranquilly, wiping his glasses.
“—Or a liar,” I replied.
After a silence he leaned back in his chair and bade me read the letter to him again, and I did so with a contemptuous tolerance for the writer, who must have been either a very innocent victim or a very stupid swindler. I said as much to Professor Farrago, but, to my surprise, he appeared to waver.
“I suppose,” he said, with his near-sighted, embarrassed smile, “that nine hundred and ninety-nine men in a thousand would throw that letter aside and condemn the writer as a liar or a fool?”
“In my opinion,” said I, “he’s one or the other.”
“He isn’t—in mine,” said the professor, placidly.
“What!” I exclaimed. “Here is a man living all alone on a strip of rock and sand between the wilderness and the sea, who wants you to send somebody to take charge of a bird that doesn’t exist!”
“How do you know,” asked Professor Farrago, “that the bird in question does not exist?”
“It is generally accepted,” I replied, sarcastically, “that the great auk has been extinct for years. Therefore I may be pardoned for doubting that our correspondent possesses a pair of them alive.”
“Oh, you young fellows,” said the professor, smiling wearily, “you embark on a theory for destinations that don’t exist.”
He leaned back in his chair, his amused eyes searching space for the imagery that made him smile.
“Like swimming squirrels, you navigate with the help of Heaven and a stiff breeze, but you never land where you hope to—do you?”
Rather red in the face, I said: “Don’t you believe the great auk to be extinct?”
“Audubon saw the great auk.”
“Who has seen a single specimen since?”
“Nobody—except our correspondent here,” he replied, laughing.
I laughed, too, considering the interview at an end, but the professor went on, coolly:
“Whatever it is that our correspondent has—and I am daring to believe that it is the great auk itself—I want you to secure it for the society.”
When my astonishment subsided my first conscious sentiment was one of pity. Clearly, Professor Farrago was on the verge of dotage—ah, what a loss to the world!
I believe now that Professor Farrago perfectly interpreted my thoughts, but he betrayed neither resentment nor impatience. I drew a chair up beside his desk—there was nothing to do but to obey, and this fool’s errand was none of my conceiving.
Together we made out a list of articles necessary for me and itemized the expenses I might incur, and I set a date for my return, allowing no margin for a successful termination to the expedition.
“Never mind that,” said the professor. “What I want you to do is to get those birds here safely. Now, how many men will you take?”
“None,” I replied, bluntly; “it’s a useless expense, unless there is something to bring back. If there is I’ll wire you, you may be sure.”
“Very well,” said Professor Farrago, good-humoredly, “you shall have all the assistance you may require. Can you leave to-night?”
The old gentleman was certainly prompt. I nodded, half-sulkily, aware of his amusement.
“So,” I said, picking up my hat, “I am to start north to find a place called Black Harbor, where there is a man named Halyard who possesses, among other household utensils, two extinct great auks—”
We were both laughing by this time. I asked him why on earth he credited the assertion of a man he had never before heard of.
“I suppose,” he replied, with the same half-apologetic, half-humorous smile, “it is instinct. I feel, somehow, that this man Halyard has got an auk—perhaps two. I can’t get away from the idea that we are on the eve of acquiring the rarest of living creatures. It’s odd for a scientist to talk as I do; doubtless you’re shocked—admit it, now!”
But I was not shocked; on the contrary, I was conscious that the same strange hope that Professor Farrago cherished was beginning, in spite of me, to stir my pulses, too.
“If he has—” I began, then stopped.
The professor and I looked hard at each other in silence.
“Go on,” he said, encouragingly.
But I had nothing more to say, for the prospect of beholding with my own eyes a living specimen of the great auk produced a series of conflicting emotions within me which rendered speech profanely superfluous.
From IN SEARCH OF THE UNKNOWN by Robert W. Chambers—Public Domain
Audubon: John James Audubon, an ornithologist and artist who created scientific illustrations of birds
dotage: a loss of reasoning brought about by old age
Question
Which sentence from the excerpt best explains why the professor is eager to send the narrator on an expedition?
- A“ ‘Whatever it is that our correspondent has—and I am daring to believe that it is the great auk itself—I want you to secure it for the society.’ ” (paragraph 23)
- B“ ‘What I want you to do is to get those birds here safely.’ ” (paragraph 27)
- C“ ‘I suppose,’ he replied, with the same half-apologetic, half-humorous smile, ‘it is instinct.’ ” (paragraph 33)
- D“ ‘I can’t get away from the idea that we are on the eve of acquiring the rarest of living creatures.’ ” (paragraph 33)
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks which sentence from the excerpt best explains why the professor is eager to send the narrator on an expedition.
A. Incorrect. The sentence from paragraph 23 tells what animal the professor believes the narrator will find on the expedition (the great auk), but it does not explain why the professor is so excited to find this particular animal.
B. Incorrect. Although the sentence from paragraph 27 expresses the professor’s interest in having the narrator bring the birds back safely, it does not show the underlying reason why the safety of the birds is so crucial, which is that the great auk is extremely rare.
C. Incorrect. The sentence from paragraph 33 explains why the professor believes the letter writer—he feels a gut instinct—but it does not explain why he is so eager to find out whether his instinct is correct.
D. CORRECT. The sentence from paragraph 33 reveals the professor’s excitement to get “ ‘the rarest of living creatures,’ ” the great auk. The narrator states in paragraph 14 that “ ‘it is generally accepted . . . that the great auk has been extinct for years,’ ” which would make a living auk incredibly rare and explains the professor’s eagerness for the narrator to go on the expedition.
Question analysis
Professor Farrago wants the narrator to travel north and bring back two great auks from a stranger’s home at Black Harbor. In this textual evidence task, students choose the quotation from In Search of the Unknown that best explains his eagerness, and since the lines come from different moments in their talk, close reading is needed to find the one that answers the question’s “why.”
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Explaining why a character acts, with a quotation as support, is everyday grade 7 work. What calls for care here is that all four lines are the professor’s own words about the birds or the trip, two of them from paragraph 33.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Every choice must be checked minor
- Reading between the lines minor
- Hard words minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 9, 1066 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 98 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Every quotation is the professor speaking about the birds or the trip, so the question turns on the difference between a line that shows his eagerness and one that gives its cause. His order to secure whatever the correspondent has comes closest, because it names “the great auk itself,” but it states a belief and a wish; the reason, rarity, appears only in paragraph 33. The instinct line beside it answers a different why, why he trusts the letter writer at all.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The order to “secure it for the society” and the key are both the professor naming what he hopes to acquire; the first gives his belief and his wish, the second why it matters, “the rarest of living creatures.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer
All four lines are the professor’s own words about the birds or the trip, and two come from paragraph 33, so each must be tested for whether it gives a reason rather than a wish or an order. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The key never mentions the expedition, and its force depends on paragraph 14, where the narrator says it is “generally accepted” that the great auk “has been extinct for years.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Hard words minor Understanding the question
“On the eve of acquiring” means about to obtain, and a reader who hears “eve” only as evening loses the sense that the professor thinks the prize is close. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Restate the question in your own words, “What makes the professor so keen on this trip?”, and for each quotation decide whether it answers that question or a different one about the trip.
Traps
- Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
A Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Sees eagerness in “I want you to secure it for the society” and the bold guess about the great auk, but the line states his belief and wish, not why the bird matters so much.
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Takes the instruction to “get those birds here safely” as the professor’s reason, but it says what he wants done; why the birds matter appears only in paragraph 33.
C True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Finds a stated reason in “it is instinct,” but that answers the narrator’s question about why the professor believes Halyard, not why he is eager to send someone north.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for evidence: the sentence that best explains why the professor is eager to send the narrator on the trip. So look for a reason, not a wish, an order or a feeling.
Recall what the narrator says
In paragraph 14, the narrator says “that the great auk has been extinct for years.” Extinct means no longer alive anywhere. So a living great auk would be amazingly rare. The letter writer claims to have two of them.
Find the professor’s reason
In paragraph 33, the professor says, “I can’t get away from the idea that we are on the eve of acquiring the rarest of living creatures.” On the eve of means just about to. Acquiring means getting. He thinks the zoo is about to get the rarest animal alive. That is why he wants the narrator to go.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. It shows what the professor believes and wants: the great auk, secured for the society. It doesn’t say why that matters so much.
- B does not fit. It is an order to bring the birds back safely, not a reason.
- C does not fit. “It is instinct” explains why he believes the letter writer. It doesn’t explain why he is eager for the trip.
- D fits. It gives his reason: a chance at the rarest of living creatures.
Choose the answer
Watch out: A is tempting because it shows the professor’s excitement and his order to “secure it for the society.” But a wish is not a reason. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong answer. In A, the professor dares to believe the bird is a great auk, and he wants it. That tells what he wants. D tells why: he believes the zoo is close to “acquiring the rarest of living creatures.” The question asks for the reason, so D fits better.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from In Search of the Unknown” as printed (page 21)
