Also in 2025 Practice Test B English, question 19.
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
The professor’s observations in paragraphs 15–17 create tension in the excerpt by causing the narrator to feel
- Aflustered by the professor’s criticism of his logic.
- Bannoyed by the professor’s sarcasm about his inexperience.
- Cconfused by the professor’s lack of respect for his opinion.
- Dfrustrated by the professor’s lack of interest in his theory.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks how the professor’s observations in paragraphs 15–17 create tension in the excerpt.
A. CORRECT. The professor criticizes “ ‘you young fellows’ ” (paragraph 15), suggesting that the ideas of young scientists like the narrator are unsupported (“ ‘like swimming squirrels’ ” [paragraph 17]) and inaccurate (“ ‘but you never land where you hope to—do you?’ ” [paragraph 17] and “ ‘you embark on a theory for destinations that don’t exist’ ” [paragraph 15]). The narrator then becomes “red in the face” (paragraph 18), indicating that the narrator is upset by the professor’s criticism, and asks the professor about the great auk in an attempt to defend himself.
B. Incorrect. While the narrator does experience a negative reaction to the professor’s words, the professor is being genuine, not sarcastic. In fact, the sarcasm comes from the narrator in paragraph 14 (“ ‘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’ ”), not from the professor.
C. Incorrect. The professor’s observations cause the narrator to blush with embarrassment (“rather red in the face” [paragraph 18]), but the narrator understands the point that the professor is making about the narrator’s acceptance of the idea that great auks do not exist. The narrator recognizes that the professor is criticizing his youthful ideas, not his opinion.
D. Incorrect. The professor shows amusement with the narrator’s perspective. The narrator is embarrassed and upset by the professor’s words, but the narrator does not display frustration with the professor’s lack of interest in a commonly held view of the existence of a certain species of bird.
Question analysis
In this question on In Search of the Unknown, Professor Farrago makes remarks about “you young fellows,” comparing them to swimming squirrels that never land where they hope. Students must decide how these remarks in paragraphs 15–17 make the narrator feel and so create tension. The comparison is odd and old-fashioned, and the four choices name similar negative feelings with different causes.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 students infer feelings from a character’s reactions, usually from plainly stated emotions. Here the cause is a puzzling figurative jab about “swimming squirrels,” the reaction is shown only through a physical sign, and the choices offer four close negative feelings.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- Figurative or literary language major
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 9, 1066 words; question and choices: about grade 9, 52 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 professor’s two images are odd, and students must decode them as a comment on how the narrator reasons before they can say why he blushes. Every choice names an unpleasant feeling, so the decision rests on its cause. “You young fellows” makes sarcasm about inexperience the natural guess, but the sarcasm in this scene is the narrator’s own, and the professor smiles “wearily” and speaks in earnest. The narrator’s pointed reply shows he followed the criticism, not that it confused him.
Figurative or literary language major Understanding the question
The criticism comes in images: young men who “embark on a theory for destinations that don’t exist” and who, like swimming squirrels, “never land where you hope to,” a picture of reasoning that goes astray. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The choice about annoyance at sarcasm and the right one both name a bad reaction to the professor’s remarks; they part on the cause, sincere criticism of his logic or mockery of his youth. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The narrator never names his feeling; it shows only in “Rather red in the face” and in the defensive question that follows about whether the great auk is extinct. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Paraphrase what the professor says about “you young fellows” in paragraphs 15–17, find how the narrator reacts in paragraph 18, and choose the feeling and the cause that both fit.
Traps
- Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
- 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.
- Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
The wrong answers, classified
B Wrong tone or attitude (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Hears mockery in “Oh, you young fellows,” but the professor is sincere; the sarcasm belongs to the narrator, who “sarcastically” insists in paragraph 14 that the great auk is extinct.
C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Takes the blush in paragraph 18 as confusion, though the narrator answers at once with a pointed question, which shows he understood the professor’s point well enough to push back.
D Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Is drawn by “theory” in paragraph 15 and calls the professor uninterested, though he engages the narrator’s view closely enough to answer it with two vivid images.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks how the professor’s words in paragraphs 15–17 make the narrator feel. Tension is a feeling of strain between characters. Each choice names a feeling and a cause. Both parts must be right.
Read what the professor says
In paragraph 15 he says, “Oh, you young fellows,” and “you embark on a theory for destinations that don’t exist.” To embark means to set out on a trip. He means young men set out with an idea toward places that are not there. Their reasoning leads them to wrong answers. In paragraph 17 he adds, “Like swimming squirrels, you navigate with the help of Heaven and a stiff breeze, but you never land where you hope to—do you?”
Understand the picture
A swimming squirrel can’t really steer. It drifts with luck and the wind. The professor is saying the narrator’s thinking drifts the same way and misses the truth. That is a criticism of his logic, or reasoning. In paragraph 18, the narrator is “Rather red in the face.” He is flustered, which means embarrassed and upset.
Check each choice
- A fits. He turns red after the professor criticizes his reasoning.
- B does not fit. Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean in order to mock. The professor means what he says. The sarcastic one is the narrator, in paragraph 14.
- C does not fit. He is not confused. He fires back a sharp question right away.
- D does not fit. The professor answers the narrator’s idea closely, so he is interested in it.
Watch out: B is tempting because “you young fellows” points to the narrator’s youth. But the professor is sincere, not sarcastic.
Choose the answer
The professor says the narrator’s reasoning goes astray, and the narrator turns red. So the answer is A, “flustered by the professor’s criticism of his logic.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong choice. Both A and B say the narrator feels bad. But B blames sarcasm. Paragraph 14 says the narrator “replied, sarcastically,” so the sarcasm is his own. The professor means his words seriously. A names the real cause: criticism of the narrator’s thinking.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Excerpt from In Search of the Unknown” as printed (page 21)
