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
How does the exchange between the professor and the narrator in paragraphs 8–11 contribute to the development of the excerpt?
- AIt establishes the conflict between the professor and the narrator concerning the validity of the letter.
- BIt suggests a theme of collaboration because the narrator and the professor regularly work together.
- CIt reveals the characters’ traits by contrasting the narrator’s distrust of the content of the letter with how easily the professor is deceived by what he reads.
- DIt hints that the resolution will involve the narrator accepting the professor’s opinion about the content of the letter.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks how the exchange between the professor and the narrator in paragraphs 8–11 contributes to the development of the excerpt.
A. CORRECT. Paragraphs 8–10 describe the narrator communicating his firm belief that the writer of the letter about the auks is either “ ‘a liar or a fool’ ” (paragraph 9). However, paragraph 11 reveals that the professor disagrees with the narrator’s assessment of Halyard, the man who wrote the letter (“ ‘He isn’t—in mine,’ said the professor, placidly”). This difference between the opinions of the narrator and the professor is the central conflict of the excerpt.
B. Incorrect. Paragraphs 8–11 reveal a disagreement between the narrator and the professor (“to my surprise, he appeared to waver” [paragraph 8]) and do not describe collaboration or show them working together.
C. Incorrect. Although the narrator initially distrusts the contents of the letter and shows “contemptuous tolerance for the writer” (paragraph 8), the excerpt portrays the professor as experienced and intelligent, not as one who is easily deceived. In fact, the professor ultimately convinces the narrator that the letter may in fact contain accurate information about the great auks.
D. Incorrect. While the narrator does begin to consider the professor’s perspective at the end of the excerpt, paragraphs 8–11 primarily serve to establish the disagreement between the narrator and the professor about the writer of the letter.
Question analysis
In paragraphs 8–11 of the excerpt from In Search of the Unknown, the narrator and Professor Farrago react to a letter from a man who claims to have two living great auks. This question asks how their exchange contributes to the development of the excerpt, so students must look at what each man says and what it sets up for the rest of the story.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Grade 7 readers analyze how parts of a story shape what follows, and this asks just that of four short paragraphs, mostly dialogue. The narrator’s scornful, old-fashioned voice takes some care to read, but the reasoning is typical grade 7 work.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- How, not what minor
- Reading between the lines minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 9, 1066 words; question and choices: about grade 13, 96 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
The four paragraphs are short and the disagreement is plain, so most students see that the two men differ about the letter. The trouble lies in how the choices describe that difference. One adopts the narrator’s scorn and calls the professor easily deceived, a judgment only the narrator holds, and another jumps ahead to the hope he admits much later. Keeping to what each man says here, and to what it sets in motion, leaves the conflict itself.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The choice that sets the narrator’s distrust against an easily deceived professor and the key both contrast the two men’s views of the letter; they part only on whether the professor is fooled. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
How, not what minor Working it out
The stem asks how four paragraphs serve the whole excerpt, so students must see that this first open disagreement sets up the conflict the rest of the scene works through. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The professor’s position fits in four words, “He isn’t—in mine,” which students must read as openness to the letter’s truth, set against the narrator’s flat “one or the other.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Write down in a few words where each man stands on the letter in paragraphs 8–11, then reject any option that misdescribes either man or depends on events after paragraph 11.
Traps
- Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
B True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Rests on a true fact, that the narrator submits his replies to the professor, but in paragraphs 8–11 the two disagree openly and nothing shows them cooperating.
C Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Gets the narrator’s distrust of the letter right but takes over his view that the professor is gullible, though the professor only declines to call the writer a liar or a fool.
D Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Knows the narrator later begins to share the professor’s hope, in paragraph 34, but in paragraphs 8–11 he still insists the writer is “one or the other.”
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks what paragraphs 8–11 add as the story builds. Look at what each man says about the letter in these paragraphs. Then compare their views.
Find the narrator’s view
In paragraph 8, the narrator reads the letter “with a contemptuous tolerance for the writer.” Contemptuous means full of scorn. He thinks the writer is “either a very innocent victim or a very stupid swindler.” A swindler is a cheat. In paragraph 9, the professor asks if most men would call the writer “a liar or a fool.” The narrator answers in paragraph 10: “he’s one or the other.”
Find the professor’s view
Paragraph 8 ends “to my surprise, he appeared to waver.” To waver means to be unsure. In paragraph 11, the professor answers calmly, “He isn’t—in mine.” He means that in his opinion, the writer is neither a liar nor a fool. So the two men clash over whether the letter can be believed. A clash like this is a conflict.
Check each choice
- A fits. The men disagree about whether the letter is true. Validity means whether something is true or sound.
- B does not fit. They do work together, but in these paragraphs they argue.
- C does not fit. The narrator’s distrust is real. But nothing shows the professor is fooled. He calmly thinks for himself.
- D does not fit. The narrator starts to share the professor’s hope much later, in paragraph 34. Here he doesn’t budge.
Choose the answer
Watch out: C is tempting because its first half is right. But “how easily the professor is deceived” is only what the narrator assumes. The story never shows the professor being tricked. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong answer. It gets the narrator right: he distrusts the letter. But it treats the professor as easily fooled, and the story never shows that. The professor simply disagrees: “He isn’t—in mine.” A describes both sides correctly. These paragraphs set up the conflict over whether the letter can be trusted.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Excerpt from In Search of the Unknown” as printed (page 21)
