Passage The Best Laid Plans of Ravens
The Best Laid Plans of Ravens
In Edgar Allan Poe’s poem “The Raven,” a raven visits a lonely man’s home and responds to the man’s pleading questions with only the word “nevermore.” The poem’s narrator interprets the word as a prediction of doom for his future. A talking, prophetic raven may seem to be the wild imaginings of the poet, but a new study published in the journal Science hints that one particular idea behind the poem might not be as far-fetched as it seems. For most of human history, people assumed that animals do not understand the passage of time in the same way people do. Some people believed that animals might remember events from the past and that instinct might drive them to make preparations in order to guarantee survival, but most people did not think that animals had the ability to plan. At Lund University in Sweden, researchers argue that ravens may be able to think ahead and even plan for the future.
It can be difficult to test an animal’s ability to plan because human observers must be certain they are not mistaking instinctual behavior for intentional planning. For example, many animals hoard food so that they will not run out later, but scientists who study animals would not call hoarding a decision to plan for the future. This action is merely instinctual. Cognitive scientists argue that in order for an animal’s behavior to qualify as preparing for the future, the animal must use specific decision-making skills to solve a problem.
To avoid mistaking instinctual behavior for evidence of decision-making, the Lund University researchers designed two experiments to test ravens’ ability to plan. Ravens belong to the corvid family, a group of birds known for their intelligence. A study in 2007 showed that corvids have the tendency to save only certain types of food, which suggests that they are planning for the future rather than acting on instinct. In order to investigate that theory, the researchers had to design experiments that would achieve results that could not be explained by an instinctual behavior of food hoarding. Therefore, the ravens were taught two behaviors that they do not normally perform in the wild.
For the first experiment, the researchers showed the birds how to use a small stone to open a box and get treats. Once the ravens learned the behavior, the researchers presented the birds with four stones. Only one stone was the right size to open the box. The birds learned to select that stone and set it aside until the researchers presented the box. The second experiment involved bartering. A researcher would trade the ravens a large treat for a bottle cap. Later, the researchers presented the ravens with a group of items, including small treats and the bottle cap. The ravens chose the bottle cap over the treats and waited for the original researcher to trade with them again so that they could get more treats. In both experiments, the ravens waited patiently for up to seventeen hours for the researcher to return.
The results of these experiments are exciting, but more evidence needs to be gathered before scientists can fully conclude that ravens can plan for the future. Some scientists argue that the ravens might be choosing the stone and bottle cap because the ravens have been trained to do so, not necessarily because the ravens are thinking ahead. Regardless, like other recent advances in animal science, these experiments show that ravens could be much smarter than first believed, and scientists now believe that ravens do actually think about their own future.
Question
With which statement would the author of the passage most likely agree?
- AScientists are unlikely to be able to conduct an experiment that can genuinely distinguish between instinctual and learned behaviors in animals.
- BScientists should continue researching to find more evidence to support the idea that some animals show signs of advanced intelligence.
- CScientists should be careful about making conclusions about animal intelligence based on experiments that rely on training animals.
- DScientists can confirm data on whether animals have the ability to plan by performing experiments on additional species known for their intelligence.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks the reader to choose the statement with which the author of the passage would most likely agree.
A. Incorrect. It is very likely that additional experiments or changes to the experiments presented can help scientists tell the difference between the types of behavior that the animals are showing. The current research supports “other recent advances in animal science” and also shows that ravens are “much smarter” (paragraph 5) than previously believed, making them excellent candidates for further research.
B. CORRECT. As paragraph 5 notes, “more evidence needs to be gathered before scientists can fully conclude that ravens can plan for the future.” The evidence is not yet considered definitive because “some scientists argue that the ravens might be choosing the stone and bottle cap because the ravens have been trained to do so, not necessarily because the ravens are thinking ahead” (paragraph 5). Therefore, more research is needed in order to draw a complete conclusion.
C. Incorrect. The passage shows that the scientists did not draw conclusions based on one experiment alone. The passage also states in paragraph 5 that additional research and experiments are necessary in order to obtain conclusive evidence of ravens’ abilities to think and plan ahead.
D. Incorrect. The passage claims that more evidence must be gathered in order to make a claim that animals can definitely plan for the future. The evidence presented helps scientists “believe that ravens do actually think about their own future” (paragraph 5), but more confirmation is needed. The passage does not discuss performing experiments on additional species.
Question analysis
After an article on two Swedish experiments with ravens, stones, bottle caps and treats, students infer the author’s overall view of the research and pick the statement the author would most likely accept. Each statement sounds like reasonable scientific caution or advice, so the choice rests on what “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens” itself concludes.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Grade 7 readers often infer an author’s position. This article is short and its tone is clear, but the closing paragraph weighs an objection before reaching a verdict, and students must not mistake one for the other.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- Reading between the lines moderate
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Much to keep track of minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 599 words; question and choices: about grade 14, 93 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
Several opinions are reported in this short article, and the challenge is isolating the author’s. The training objection in paragraph 5 is easy to adopt as the author’s own warning, yet “Regardless” shows it being weighed and passed over for a hopeful conclusion that still wants more evidence. In this printing the right statement speaks of finding evidence “to support the idea,” a slant that can make a cautious reader prefer the warning about training.
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
No sentence says what the author thinks scientists should do; it has to be pieced together from paragraph 5, which calls for more evidence, reports a doubt, and then turns with “Regardless” to a hopeful view. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
Two statements counsel scientific caution; the one about training differs from the right one in adopting the objection that “some scientists” raise, which the author reports and then moves past. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Much to keep track of minor Working it out
The article carries four voices, the people who long doubted animals, the Lund researchers, the doubting “some scientists” and the author, and each statement must be traced to its owner. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)
Strategy: Put the author’s final judgment on the experiments in plain words; then, for each statement, ask whether the author would need to change anything in the article to accept it.
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.
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
- Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.
The wrong answers, classified
A Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Hardens paragraph 2’s point that planning is “difficult” to test into a claim that a true test is unlikely, a pessimism the author, who calls the results “exciting,” never shows.
C Wrong tone or attitude (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Adopts the objection that the ravens may simply have been trained, which “some scientists” raise, as the author’s own view, though the author answers it with “Regardless” and a hopeful verdict.
D Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)
Offers a sensible research plan, repeating the tests on other clever species, that the article never proposes; it mentions corvids only as background to the raven study.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks which statement the author would most likely agree with. You must find the author’s own view. The article also reports what other people think. Keep those voices apart.
Sort out the voices in paragraph 5
The author writes, “The results of these experiments are exciting, but more evidence needs to be gathered before scientists can fully conclude that ravens can plan for the future.” Next comes a different voice: “Some scientists argue that the ravens might be choosing the stone and bottle cap because the ravens have been trained to do so.” That doubt belongs to other scientists, not to the author.
Put the author’s view in plain words
After the doubt, the author writes “Regardless,” which means “even so.” Then the author ends on a hopeful note. The experiments “show that ravens could be much smarter than first believed.” So the author thinks the research is promising but not finished. Scientists should keep looking for evidence until they can be sure.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. Paragraph 2 says testing for planning can be difficult. Difficult is not impossible, and the author calls the results exciting.
- B fits. The author says more evidence is needed and expects it to show that ravens are smart. Ravens are the “some animals” in this choice.
- C does not fit. The worry about training belongs to “some scientists.” The author moves past it with “Regardless.”
- D does not fit. The article never suggests testing other kinds of animals.
Watch out: C sounds careful and scientific. But it repeats the doubters’ view, not the author’s.
Choose the answer
The author finds the research exciting and wants scientists to keep gathering evidence. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong choice. It sounds wise, and the author is careful too. But the worry about training comes from “some scientists,” and the author answers it with “Regardless.” The author’s own view is hopeful: “more evidence needs to be gathered,” and ravens may be smarter than people thought. That matches B.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens” as printed (page 12)
