Also in 2025 Practice Test B English, question 21.
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“I believe now that Professor Farrago perfectly interpreted my thoughts, but he betrayed neither resentment nor impatience.” (paragraph 25)
- B“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.” (paragraph 26)
- C“ ‘What I want you to do is to get those birds here safely.’ ” (paragraph 27)
- 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 25 says that the professor “perfectly interpreted” the narrator’s thoughts: in paragraph 24, the narrator suspects the professor is losing his ability to reason because his request (to secure the great auk for the society) seems impossible. The professor is excited about the discovery, but the narrator doubts whether the discovery is real. The sentence does not explain why the professor is excited, however.
B. Incorrect. Paragraph 26 shows the professor and the narrator planning the logistics of the trip, but it does not explain why the professor is eager to send the narrator on the expedition.
C. 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.
D. CORRECT. The sentence from paragraph 33 reveals the professor’s excitement to get “ ‘the rarest of living creatures,’ ” the great auk. In paragraph 14, the narrator states 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
This textual evidence question asks which sentence from In Search of the Unknown best explains why Professor Farrago is eager to send the narrator to collect a pair of great auks from a man who wrote to the zoo. Students must find the sentence that gives the professor’s reason, and the four quotations, from paragraphs 25 to 33, all concern the expedition in some way.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Choosing the sentence that best explains a character’s motive is standard grade 7 evidence work. The four quotations are short and labeled, but students must tell a reason for the professor’s eagerness apart from sentences that merely relate to the trip.
- 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
- 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 12, 109 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A detail in the explanation was attributed to the wrong paragraph; it was corrected.
- 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 concerns the expedition, so the question rests on the difference between a sentence that relates to the trip and one that gives the professor’s reason for wanting it. The order to bring the birds back safely shows his eagerness plainly and draws students who stop there. Only the sentence about “the rarest of living creatures” supplies a motive, and it gains its weight from the narrator’s earlier claim that the great auk is extinct.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The professor’s order to “get those birds here safely” and the right sentence are both his words about the birds; one says what he wants, the other why he wants it. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The right sentence never mentions the expedition, and its force depends on paragraph 14, where the narrator says 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” is an idiom for being about to obtain, and a student who takes “eve” as evening misses that the professor feels the prize is near. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Restate the question as “Why does the professor want the narrator to go?” and ask of each quotation whether it gives a reason or only describes part of the plan.
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.
- Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
- 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)
Picks the professor reading the narrator’s doubts with “neither resentment nor impatience,” a true picture of his calm that says nothing about why he wants the birds.
B Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Is drawn by “the expedition” at the end of the sentence, but the list of supplies, costs and a return date is planning, not the professor’s motive.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Takes the professor’s instruction to bring the birds safely as his reason, but it states what he wants done; why the birds matter appears only in paragraph 33.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option A says “In the sentence from paragraph 25, the narrator suspects the professor is losing his ability to reason.” That suspicion is in paragraph 24 (“Clearly, Professor Farrago was on the verge of dotage,” where dotage is “a loss of reasoning brought about by old age”). The sentence from paragraph 25, which is Option A, says that the professor “perfectly interpreted my thoughts” and showed “neither resentment nor impatience.” The site now says: “The sentence from paragraph 25 says that the professor ‘perfectly interpreted’ the narrator’s thoughts: in paragraph 24, the narrator suspects the professor is losing his ability to reason.” The rest of the explanation is unchanged: Option A is still wrong because the sentence does not explain why the professor is eager to send the narrator.
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. So look for a reason, not a plan or an order.
Recall what the narrator believes
In paragraph 14, the narrator says “that the great auk has been extinct for years.” Extinct means no longer alive anywhere on Earth. 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 close to getting the rarest animal alive. That is why he is eager to send the narrator.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. It is from paragraph 25. It says the professor understood the narrator’s thoughts. Those thoughts are in paragraph 24: the professor was “on the verge of dotage,” or losing his reason in old age. A shows the professor’s calm, not his reason.
- B does not fit. It describes planning the trip, not why.
- C does not fit. It says what the professor wants done, but not why the birds matter.
- D fits. It gives his reason: a chance at the rarest of creatures.
Watch out: C is tempting because the professor is talking about the birds. But it is an order, not a reason.
Choose the answer
Only D explains what makes the trip so exciting to the professor. So the answer is D, “I can’t get away from the idea that we are on the eve of acquiring the rarest of living creatures.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong choice. In C, the professor says “What I want you to do is to get those birds here safely.” That tells what he wants. D tells why he wants it: the birds may be “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)
