The Tunguska Fireball On June 30, 1908

2018 Handbook

2018 Test B English · Question 15 of 57

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 author includes a series of questions at the end of the last paragraph most likely to

  • Aencourage further study of the Tunguska event.
  • Bsuggest that the Tunguska event had multiple causes.
  • Creflect a personal curiosity about the Tunguska event.
  • Demphasize that the Tunguska event has not yet been fully explained.
Show the answer

Correct answer: D

The question asks how the questions at the end of the last paragraph affect the passage. Although the passage introduces a number of theories about the Tunguska explosion, no definitive explanation has been reached. This idea is stated in Option D.

Option A is incorrect because, although the passage does not discourage further study, it does not specifically promote it.

Option B is incorrect because, although the author presents multiple possible causes, the passage suggests that the damage was most likely caused by one of these possibilities rather than several of them simultaneously. The author is certainly curious about the actual cause of the Tunguska explosion but objectively presents the questions about it that remain unanswered, making Option C incorrect.

Question analysis

This author’s-craft question asks why the Tunguska article ends its last paragraph with a string of questions. Students must decide what purpose the questions serve in a passage that presents several competing theories. Each choice offers a reasonable-sounding motive, so students must judge which one the passage as a whole supports.

NYS standards
  • 7R5 structure and genre features
  • 7R2 theme or central idea
Grade level
Grade 7 reading and task
Compared with grade 7
At grade 7 Explaining why an author uses a device such as rhetorical questions is grade 7 structure work. Students must infer purpose from the ending’s context, and some wrong choices name purposes that sound natural for questions in general.
Estimated difficulty
Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
What makes it hard
Evidence
Answered from one paragraph or stanza
Reading level
Passage: about grade 10, 531 words; question and choices: about grade 9, 51 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

All four purposes sound like reasons a writer might end with questions, so the work is in matching the purpose to this article’s stance. It has laid out competing theories without choosing one, and the questions keep that balance before the flat statement that the mystery is unsolved. Students lose the point by reading the questions as a call to action, a personal voice, or a claim that several causes acted together.

  1. How, not what moderate Working it out

    Students must name what four closing questions do, and the clue is the short sentence right after them, “The mystery remains unsolved,” which the questions lead up to. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

  2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

    The questions revisit theories from across the article, the missing crater, the meteorite, the comet, so seeing that none has won means recalling paragraphs 2 through 5. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Reread the whole last paragraph, then decide what closing on a string of questions does for the reader of this science article.

Traps

  • Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
  • 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Working it out, step by step

  1. Figure out what the question asks

    This asks why the author ends with a string of questions. You need their purpose: what the questions do for the reader.

  2. Read the end of paragraph 6

    The passage ends: “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.”

  3. Work out what the questions do

    Each question goes back to an idea from earlier: the missing crater, the meteorite, the comet. None of them has a sure answer. Right after the questions, the author says it plainly: “The mystery remains unsolved.” So the questions stress that no one knows for sure what happened.

  4. Check each choice

    • A is wrong. The author never asks readers or scientists to study the event more.
    • B is wrong. The questions list different possible causes. They compete with each other. They are not causes that worked together.
    • C is wrong. The author reports facts and never says “I” or shares feelings.
    • D is right. The questions show the event is still not fully explained.

    Watch out: Questions can sound like a call for more research. But nothing in the passage tells anyone to study more.

  5. Choose the answer

    The questions remind you that every idea is still in doubt. So the answer is D.

Why this answer and not the closest wrong one

A is the closest wrong answer. Open questions might make a reader want more research. But the passage never urges anyone to study the event. The questions lead straight into “The mystery remains unsolved.” That sentence tells you their purpose.

The original DOE question

Question 15 as printed on page 126 of the DOE handbook.
As printed in the DOE’s Specialized High Schools Student Handbook 2018–2019, page 126, question 15. Open page 126 of the handbook (PDF) This is the DOE’s version, before the corrections listed in the analysis.
The passage “The Tunguska Fireball” as printed (page 124)The passage “The Tunguska Fireball” as printed on page 124 of the DOE handbook.