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 best demonstrates the professional relationship between the narrator and the professor?
- A“I said as much to Professor Farrago, but, to my surprise, he appeared to waver.” (paragraph 8)
- B“Clearly, Professor Farrago was on the verge of dotage—ah, what a loss to the world!” (paragraph 24)
- C“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.” (paragraph 25)
- D“ ‘Very well,’ said Professor Farrago, good-humoredly, ‘you shall have all the assistance you may require.’ ” (paragraph 29)
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks which sentence best demonstrates the professional relationship between the narrator and the professor.
A. Incorrect. Although the professor’s asking for the narrator’s personal opinion about the letter shows that they have respect for each other’s views, the sentence from paragraph 8 does not convey the relationship between a subordinate employee (the narrator) and a superior (the professor).
B. Incorrect. The sentence from paragraph 24 presents the narrator’s immediate internal reaction to the professor’s words. The sentence emphasizes that the professor’s belief in the great auk’s existence is so outrageous that the narrator initially thinks the professor is starting to lose touch with reality. This is a momentary reaction to the professor’s words, not a demonstration of the professional relationship between the two.
C. CORRECT. The sentence from paragraph 25 reveals that while the narrator disagrees with the professor (“this fool’s errand was none of my conceiving”), he obeys because he works for the professor (“there was nothing to do but to obey”).
D. Incorrect. The professor’s good-humored offer of assistance in the sentence from paragraph 29 does not best demonstrate the underlying employer-employee relationship between the professor and the narrator. The narrator has to go on the expedition because the professor, his boss, told him to.
Question analysis
This question tests textual evidence: students pick the line from In Search of the Unknown that best shows the working relationship between the narrator and Professor Farrago. The lines are drawn from across the scene, from the first talk about a puzzling letter to the planning of a trip, and each shows a different side of the two men.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 This matches ordinary grade 7 work with textual evidence, since the quotations are brief and labeled by paragraph. The old-fashioned narration and the need to weigh four plausible lines keep it from being easy.
- 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
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Every choice must be checked 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, 88 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 shows the narrator and the professor together, and the promise of “all the assistance you may require” even displays the professor’s control over the society’s means. Only one line states the narrator’s side of the hierarchy: he thinks the trip foolish and goes anyway because he must. A student who treats any exchange about the letter as professional is drawn to the narrator reporting his opinion, while one who watches only the professor’s power settles on the offer of help.
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The stem never defines the relationship, so students must first picture it, a superintendent and a subordinate who carries out his orders, before they can recognize it in “there was nothing to do but to obey.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer
Each quotation shows the two men interacting, from the narrator reporting his verdict on the letter to the professor promising help, so all four must be weighed for what they reveal about rank. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Hard words minor Understanding the question
The key line closes with “this fool’s errand was none of my conceiving,” an old-fashioned way of saying the trip was not his idea, which is what makes his obedience revealing. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Note what each quotation shows about how the two men deal with each other, then choose the one that tells most about their working relationship, not just their personalities.
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 True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Treats the narrator telling the professor his opinion of the letter as a sign of their working roles, but the line shows only a disagreement and the professor wavering, not who answers to whom.
B True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks the narrator’s silent judgment that the professor is near “dotage,” true to his thoughts in paragraph 24 but a fleeting reaction that shows nothing about their duties.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Reads the professor’s generous offer as a superior’s power, which is part of their relationship, but the line shows his good humor rather than the narrator’s duty to obey.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for the sentence that best shows their professional relationship. That means how they relate at work: who is the boss, and who must follow orders. Paragraph 3 calls Professor Farrago the “general superintendent of the Zoological Gardens.” He is in charge. The narrator even sends him his replies “for approval.”
Look for a sign of boss and worker
Choice C quotes paragraph 25: “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.” To obey means to do what you are told. A fool’s errand is a pointless task. “None of my conceiving” means it was not his idea.
Put it in your own words
The narrator thinks the trip is silly. Still, he must go, because the professor is his boss. A worker who disagrees but follows orders anyway shows a work relationship very clearly.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. The narrator tells the professor his opinion, and the professor seems unsure. It shows a disagreement, not who is in charge.
- B does not fit. It is the narrator’s private thought that the professor is losing his mind in old age. It is a passing reaction.
- C fits. The narrator must obey even though he disagrees.
- D does not fit. It shows the professor being friendly and generous. It doesn’t show the narrator’s duty to follow orders.
Choose the answer
Watch out: D is tempting because only a boss can offer “all the assistance you may require.” But the sentence mostly shows the professor’s good mood. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
D is the closest wrong answer. The professor’s offer of help does hint at his power. But the sentence mainly shows him in good humor. C shows the heart of their work relationship. The narrator thinks the job is a fool’s errand, yet he has “nothing to do but to obey.”
More questions like this
The original DOE question

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