Passage The Tunguska Fireball
The Tunguska Fireball
On June 30, 1908, an enormous fireball shot across the sky and exploded high above the remote Tunguska River Valley in the Siberian region of Russia. Twenty miles away, huts were flattened and people were flung into the air. Villagers 40 miles away felt the heat and heard explosions, and tremors were recorded at a German seismic station more than 3,000 miles away.
What caused the intense light and the horrendous destruction of the Tunguska Fireball, as it came to be called? Scientists and laypeople have debated the question for over 100 years. Not until 1927 did a scientific expedition, led by Russian scientist Leonid Kulik, reach the remote site. Kulik discovered a vast region of scorched and downed trees, their trunks pointing away from the center of the blast. Convinced that a meteorite was responsible, Kulik searched for evidence—a crater, a buried meteorite, even fragments of the exploded mass. He never found it.
Other scientists, amateur astronomers, and the public suggested alternative theories of what had happened. Some thought it was an earthquake. Perhaps, others said, a black hole—a theoretical object in space where gravity is so strong that even light cannot get out—had collided with Earth or an alien spaceship carrying nuclear material had crashed.
For many years Russian scientists believed that the Tunguska Fireball was a comet—a cluster of dust and frozen gases—that had exploded a few hundred feet above the ground. They pointed to the lack of meteoric evidence and the June 30 date, a time of year when Earth was passing through cometary debris. Other scientists disagreed, arguing that a comet would have burned quickly in Earth’s atmosphere and could not have created such a blast.
Many Western scientists believed that a meteorite was responsible, despite the lack of evidence. The pattern of fallen trees suggested that they were knocked down by a blast about 4 miles above the ground with an energy of 15 megatons of TNT, consistent with a meteoric blast. Yet repeated searches of the surrounding forest and wetlands revealed no evidence of a meteorite.
During the 1990s an Italian physicist named Menotti Galli became interested. Galli had previously investigated whether particles from outer space can add carbon atoms to the cellulose in trees. Perhaps the trees at the Tunguska site hid evidence of such extraterrestrial material. Galli and his colleagues traveled to the site by helicopter to gather core samples from spruce trees that had lived through the blast. They analyzed the particles trapped in the trees’ resin, and the results were remarkable. Based on studying the trees’ rings during the time period when the Tunguska Fireball occurred, the researchers found that the resin contained high levels of high-proton elements, such as copper, gold, and nickel. In fact, it contained ten times more such particles than resin dating from either before or after that time period. Some previously discovered meteorites had also contained elevated levels of these elements, suggesting that the particles had an extra-earthly origin. But then where is the crater? Is it nearby Lake Cheko, as some claim? Or was the meteorite reduced to dust in the atmosphere? Can scientists rule out a comet carrying those elements? The mystery remains unsolved.
Question
What evidence best indicated the location of the blast?
- Aa lake formed from a crater
- Btremors recorded at a seismic station
- Cdamage caused to buildings
- Dthe position of the trunks of fallen trees
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks for evidence that best supports a detail in the passage. When scientists were able to travel to the site almost two decades after the blast, they found a circle of “scorched and downed trees” that marked the blast site (paragraph 2), making Option D the correct answer.
Option A is incorrect because, although the scientists searched for a crater, they never found one (paragraph 2).
Option B is also incorrect because the tremors recorded at a seismic station thousands of miles away detailed the magnitude of the event, not the location (paragraph 1).
Option C is incorrect because, although huts were flattened when the blast occurred, the destruction of the huts was not evident when the site was found almost two decades later (paragraph 1).
Question analysis
This evidence question uses a science article about the Tunguska Fireball, the mysterious 1908 explosion over Siberia. Students decide which piece of evidence best showed where the blast took place. The article piles up details about the explosion’s effects and the search that followed, so students must judge which detail really points to a place.
- NYS standards
- 7R1 textual evidence and inferences
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Finding the detail that answers a direct question is routine grade 7 reading, but this science article on a 1908 Siberian explosion uses dense, technical sentences. Students must also work out what a clue reveals, because the text never labels it.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Reading between the lines moderate
- The right answer is reworded minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 531 words; question and choices: about grade 5, 33 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A misspelled place name in the passage 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 choice is connected to the blast, so the question turns on the word “location.” Students who remember the passage’s many effects, from tremors to flattened huts, have to ask which of them could point to a spot, and the crater that never turned up is the most natural guess. The direction the fallen trunks point is the only clue in the passage that does this.
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The passage never says the trees revealed where the blast happened; students must see that trunks “pointing away from the center of the blast” point back toward that center. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer
The seismic-station choice repeats the passage’s words almost exactly, while the right choice turns “their trunks pointing away” into the plainer “the position of the trunks of fallen trees.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Strategy: For each clue in the choices, find what the passage says about it, then ask whether that clue could help someone pinpoint where the blast happened.
Traps
- Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.
- 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.
The wrong answers, classified
A Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)
Assumes an explosion from space must leave a crater, helped by the closing question about Lake Cheko, though Kulik searched for a crater and “never found it.”
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Recalls the tremors recorded at a German station 3,000 miles away, real evidence about the blast, but the passage uses it to show the blast’s power, not where it happened.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Remembers that huts were flattened, real evidence of the blast, but they stood 20 miles away, so they show how far the damage reached rather than marking its center.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Passage: The handbook’s passage asks, “Is it nearby Lake Cheka, as some claim?” The lake near the Tunguska blast site that some scientists have proposed as the crater is Lake Cheko, so the site now spells it that way. No answer depends on the spelling.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks which clue best showed where the blast happened. You need evidence about location, not about how strong the blast was.
Find the clue in paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 tells what Leonid Kulik found when he reached the site in 1927: “Kulik discovered a vast region of scorched and downed trees, their trunks pointing away from the center of the blast.”
Work out what the trees show
“Scorched” means burned. “Downed” means knocked over. The blast pushed the trees outward, so they fell pointing away from it, like spokes on a bike wheel. Follow the fallen trunks backward, and they all lead to the same spot. That spot is the center of the blast.
Check each choice
- A is wrong. Kulik looked for a crater, but “He never found it.” The lake comes up only as a question at the end.
- B is wrong. The tremors were recorded “more than 3,000 miles away.” They show how strong the blast was, not where it was.
- C is wrong. Huts were flattened 20 miles away. That shows how far the damage reached, not where the center was.
- D is right. The fallen trunks point away from the center, so they mark it.
Watch out: You might expect a blast from space to leave a crater. But the passage says no crater was found.
Choose the answer
The direction of the fallen trees points back to the center of the blast. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong answer, because a crater would mark a spot. But no crater was ever found. The passage only asks whether Lake Cheko might be one. The trees are real evidence. Their trunks all point away from one center, so they show where the blast happened.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “The Tunguska Fireball” as printed (page 124)
