Also in 2025 Practice Test B English, question 22.
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 paragraph 34 help develop the plot of the excerpt?
- AIt shows that the narrator is beginning to consider the possibility of finding the great auks.
- BIt demonstrates that the narrator is struggling to understand why the professor thinks the great auks exist.
- CIt establishes that the narrator is willing to let the professor overrule him about the great auks.
- DIt emphasizes that the narrator feels a sense of urgency to complete the expedition to locate the great auks.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks how paragraph 34 helps develop the plot of the excerpt.
A. CORRECT. Despite his initial disbelief, the narrator admits in paragraph 34 that he is starting to feel the “same strange hope” the professor feels, which is to find the great auks (paragraph 33).
B. Incorrect. While the narrator does make an effort in paragraphs 11–22 to understand the professor’s thinking, paragraph 34 reveals that the narrator has been affected by the professor’s “strange hope” for the auks and is beginning to share this hope “in spite of” himself.
C. Incorrect. The narrator describes a feeling of hope in paragraph 34 that would not be present if he had simply been overruled by the professor and did not share any of the professor’s belief in the possibility that the auks exist. In addition, it was established before paragraph 34 that the narrator was willing to be overruled (“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. Incorrect. The narrator does not express a sense of urgency in paragraph 34 to complete the expedition. Instead, he expresses hope that the great auks might really exist.
Question analysis
This plot question on In Search of the Unknown asks how paragraph 34, a single long sentence near the end of the excerpt, helps develop the story of the narrator’s assignment to bring back two great auks. Students must put its formal phrasing into plain words and connect it to the conversation that comes before it.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Explaining how a paragraph moves a plot forward is regular grade 7 work, and paragraph 34 is a single sentence. Its formal wording, such as “in spite of me” and “stir my pulses,” has to be put into plain words first.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- Complex sentences minor
- Figurative or literary language minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 9, 1066 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 79 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
Put into plain words, the paragraph has the narrator admitting that the professor’s hope is starting to take hold of him, which is the turn the question asks about. The losses come from reading it through earlier scenes: his obedience in paragraph 25 makes giving way to the professor look like the point, and the word “strange” makes puzzlement look likely. The paragraph records a change in what he believes, not in what he does.
Complex sentences minor Understanding the question
Paragraph 34 is one 31-word sentence that turns on “on the contrary” and breaks its main clause with “in spite of me,” so its point, a hope beginning to stir, arrives late. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)
Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question
“To stir my pulses” means to excite, and a student who reads it as a racing heart may take it for haste to leave rather than hope that the birds exist. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Restate paragraph 34 in plain modern words, then test each choice against what this paragraph itself says about the narrator.
Traps
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
- 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.
The wrong answers, classified
B Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Takes “the same strange hope” as the narrator puzzling over the professor’s belief, though the sentence says that hope is now stirring in the narrator himself.
C Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Brings in paragraph 25, where the narrator draws up a chair because he must obey, but paragraph 34 shows him starting to share the hope, not yielding to an order.
D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Reads stirring pulses as eagerness to finish the trip quickly, though the excitement is about the chance that the birds exist, and the paragraph says nothing of speed.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks how paragraph 34 moves the story forward. Read that paragraph closely. Then decide what has changed for the narrator.
Read paragraph 34 closely
Paragraph 34 says “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.” On the contrary means the opposite is true. Cherished means held dear. To stir his pulses means to make his heart beat faster with excitement.
Put it in your own words
The professor hopes the great auks are real. Now the narrator feels that same hope starting in himself. “In spite of me” means he did not want to feel it, but he does. Before, he called the letter writer a liar or a fool. Now he is starting to think the birds might really be found.
Check each choice
- A fits. He begins to hope that the birds could be found.
- B does not fit. He is not puzzling over the professor’s belief. He is starting to share it.
- C does not fit. Giving in to the professor came earlier, in paragraph 25: “there was nothing to do but to obey.” Paragraph 34 is about hope, not obeying.
- D does not fit. Nothing in the paragraph is about hurrying.
Watch out: D is tempting because a racing pulse can sound like rushing. But the excitement is about the birds, not about speed.
Choose the answer
Paragraph 34 shows the narrator’s doubt starting to turn into hope. So the answer is A, “It shows that the narrator is beginning to consider the possibility of finding the great auks.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong choice. The narrator did agree to obey the professor. But that happened in paragraph 25, and he was not happy about it. In paragraph 34, something new happens. He feels “the same strange hope” as the professor. A names that change.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

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