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
The June 30 date of the Tunguska event was significant to some scientists because it
- Asuggested that the explosion may have been caused by a comet.
- Bhighlighted why tree resin from the time of the blast contained high-proton elements.
- Cindicated that the blast may have resulted from Earth’s impact with a black hole.
- Dexplained why debris from outer space would have burned up in the atmosphere.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks why the June 30 date bears significance to some scientists. Scientists noted that Earth was passing through cometary debris on June 30, 1908 (paragraph 4), which supports the idea stated in Option A, making it the correct response.
Option B is incorrect because, while it states a detail from the passage, the detail is not connected to the June 30 date.
Option C is incorrect because it states a theory regarding the cause of the impact that is not tied to the date of June 30.
Option D is incorrect because this detail is used in the passage to suggest that such a blast could not have been caused by a comet.
Question analysis
This key-details question from the Tunguska Fireball article asks why the date of the 1908 explosion mattered to some scientists. Students must find where the passage connects the date to a theory about the blast. Several choices borrow real details from elsewhere in the article, which makes careless matching easy.
- NYS standards
- 7R1 textual evidence and inferences
- Grade level
- Grade 6 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Below grade 7 Locating a stated reason in one paragraph is lighter than most grade 7 reading tasks, which ask students to analyze or infer. Here the date is linked to its explanation in a single sentence, and the main work is finding it.
- Estimated difficulty
- Routine: one familiar step, little to misread.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 1, recall and reproduction · mainly understand
- What makes it hard
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 531 words; question and choices: about grade 7, 65 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
This is a locate-and-read question: once the second mention of June 30 is found in paragraph 4, the link to cometary debris is stated plainly. The only real trap sits in the same paragraph, where the next sentence brings in a comet burning up in the atmosphere. Students who read one sentence too far can attach the date to the objection instead of the theory.
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
June 30 first appears in paragraph 1 only as the date of the blast; its significance comes three paragraphs later, inside the Russian scientists’ case for a comet. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The sentence says only that the scientists “pointed to” the date, and students must connect that back to the comet theory stated one sentence earlier. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Skip past the opening, scan for the next mention of June 30, and read that whole sentence to see what the scientists used the date to support.
Traps
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
- 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 Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Borrows the high-proton elements in tree resin from Galli’s paragraph, a striking real finding that the passage never connects to the date of the blast.
C Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Picks the black hole from paragraph 3’s list of public guesses, a theory the passage mentions but never ties to the time of year.
D Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Finds the right paragraph but attaches the date to the next sentence’s objection, that a comet would have burned up, which the date does not explain.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks why the date June 30 mattered to some scientists. Find where the passage uses the date as a clue, and see what it was a clue for.
Find the date in paragraph 4
Paragraph 4 begins: “For many years Russian scientists believed that the Tunguska Fireball was a comet.” The next sentence says they “pointed to the lack of meteoric evidence and the June 30 date, a time of year when Earth was passing through cometary debris.”
Put the clue in plain words
A comet is “a cluster of dust and frozen gases” that moves through space. “Cometary debris” means bits left behind by comets. Around June 30, Earth passes through those bits. So the scientists said the date fits a comet. The date was a clue for the comet idea.
Check each choice
- A is right. The date suggested that the blast came from a comet.
- B is wrong. The tree resin comes from Galli’s work in paragraph 6. It has nothing to do with the date.
- C is wrong. The black hole idea in paragraph 3 is never linked to the date.
- D is wrong. Other scientists said a comet “would have burned quickly.” That argues against the comet. It does not explain the date.
Watch out: D comes from the very next sentence, so it is easy to mix up. But that sentence argues against the comet, and it is not about the date.
Choose the answer
The Russian scientists used the date to support the comet idea. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
D is the closest wrong answer, since it comes from the same paragraph. But the burning-up point is what other scientists used against the comet idea. The date was used for it. A matches what the Russian scientists “pointed to”: Earth was passing through comet bits on June 30.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

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