Also in 2025 Practice Test B English, question 24.
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 author develop the contrast between the narrator’s point of view and the professor’s point of view?
- Aby providing both the narrator’s and professor’s thoughts on how age and experience influence each other’s reasoning
- Bby using the conversation between the narrator and the professor to emphasize their reactions to the letter
- Cby describing the professor’s persistent efforts to change the narrator’s mind about the letter
- Dby including dialogue that explains why the professor is the supervisor and the narrator is his subordinate
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks how the author develops the contrast between the narrator’s point of view and the professor’s point of view.
A. Incorrect. The excerpt does not describe the narrator’s thoughts about how age and experience influence the professor’s reasoning in enough detail to fully contrast them against the thoughts about the narrator that the professor expresses in paragraphs 15–17. The narrator’s idea that the professor might be “on the verge of dotage” (paragraph 24) is meant in a humorous way.
B. CORRECT. The primary conflict of the excerpt revolves around the narrator’s disagreement with the professor about whether the letter about the great auks could be true. As the two men converse, their contrasting attitudes toward the letter become clear: the narrator dismisses the possibility of great auks out of hand (“ ‘of course the man is mistaken’ ” [paragraph 5]; “ ‘here is a man . . . who wants you to send somebody to take charge of a bird that doesn’t exist!’ ” [paragraph 12]), while the professor calmly admits that although “ ‘nine hundred and ninety-nine men in a thousand would throw that letter aside and condemn the writer’ ” (paragraph 9), he himself believes that the writer could be telling the truth (“ ‘How do you know,’ asked Professor Farrago, ‘that the bird in question does not exist?’ ” [paragraph 13]).
C. Incorrect. The professor explains why he disagrees with the narrator (paragraphs 19–21), but he does not make persistent efforts to convince the narrator to change his mind about the letter. Instead he states that the narrator will go on an expedition to retrieve “ ‘whatever it is that our correspondent has’ ” (paragraph 23), thereby requiring the narrator to go collect the great auks whether the narrator believes in them or not.
D. Incorrect. The point of the dialogue is not to explain the subordinate-supervisor relationship between the narrator and the professor but rather to contrast what each character believes about the contents of the letter.
Question analysis
This point-of-view question asks how Robert W. Chambers develops the contrast between the narrator’s outlook and Professor Farrago’s in the excerpt from In Search of the Unknown. Students must step back from single lines and judge the author’s method across the whole excerpt. The choices describe techniques in general terms, and several connect to real moments in the story.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Analyzing how an author contrasts two characters’ points of view is the grade 7 standard itself, but here students must judge the main method across the whole excerpt, and each choice names an abstract method that touches something in the text.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- How, not what major
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Evidence in several places moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from the whole text
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 9, 1066 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 84 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 right choice is plain enough to seem too obvious, so students look for something more specific. The excerpt offers a candidate: the professor teases “you young fellows,” and the narrator decides the old man is near “dotage,” which makes age look like the method. Those remarks are passing jokes, while the men’s opposite reactions to Halyard’s letter run through the whole conversation. The question rewards judging what carries the contrast from start to end rather than what is most striking.
How, not what major Working it out
The question asks for the author’s method across the whole excerpt, and every choice names an abstract technique, so students must step back from single lines to see that the dialogue carries the contrast. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The choice about age and experience and the right one both describe the two men’s opposed views as they come out in the excerpt; they part on the subject, their ages or the letter. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The contrast builds from the narrator’s “of course the man is mistaken” in paragraph 5 to the professor’s appeal to “instinct” in paragraph 33, so no single passage shows the method. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: For each choice, find where the excerpt does what the choice describes, and ask whether that method carries the contrast through the whole excerpt or appears only once or twice.
Traps
- Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
- Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
- Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
The wrong answers, classified
A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)
Notices the jab at “you young fellows” and the narrator’s thought of “dotage,” but two passing remarks about age are not how the author builds the contrast across the excerpt.
C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Overstates the professor’s role, since he asks a few calm questions and then simply assigns the trip, never working to win the narrator over.
D Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Knows that the professor is the superior, but no line of dialogue explains how either man got his position; the talk is about the letter, not their ranks.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks about the author’s method. How does the author show that the two men see things differently? Look at how the whole excerpt is built, not just one line.
Notice how the excerpt is told
Most of the excerpt is a conversation. The two men talk back and forth about the letter. Each answer shows how one man reacts to it. So their reactions to the letter are where the contrast shows up. A contrast is a clear difference between two things.
Find the two reactions
The narrator says “of course the man is mistaken” (paragraph 5). He laughs at the idea of “a bird that doesn’t exist!” (paragraph 12). The professor stays open. In paragraph 13 he asks how the narrator can be sure “that the bird in question does not exist.” In paragraph 23, he is “daring to believe” it is the great auk.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. Age comes up only twice: “you young fellows” and the narrator’s thought about “dotage.” Two short remarks do not build the contrast.
- B fits. The talk about the letter shows their opposite reactions.
- C does not fit. The professor asks a few calm questions and then simply sends the narrator. He does not keep trying to change his mind.
- D does not fit. No line explains how either man got his job.
Watch out: A is tempting because those remarks about age are real. But they are passing moments, not the author’s main method.
Choose the answer
The author builds the contrast through the two men’s talk about the letter. So the answer is B, “by using the conversation between the narrator and the professor to emphasize their reactions to the letter.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong choice. The professor does tease “you young fellows,” and the narrator does think of “dotage.” But those are two quick remarks. From paragraph 5 to paragraph 33, the two men keep reacting to the letter in opposite ways. That steady back-and-forth builds the contrast, so B fits.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Excerpt from In Search of the Unknown” as printed (page 21)
