Passage The Year without a Summer
The Year without a Summer
The eruption of the Philippine volcano Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 sent a huge cloud of gas and dust encircling the globe. The dust and ash from Mount Pinatubo was blamed for a two-year decrease in global temperature, changes in weather patterns, and damage to the ozone layer. The situation brings to mind a time now remembered as “The Year without a Summer,” a meteorological event that occurred 175 years earlier. At that time, harsh weather conditions plagued much of eastern North America and, to a lesser extent, northern Europe.
April 1816 brought typical spring weather to upstate New York and New England; trees budded, and farmers prepared to plow and plant. In May, however, the expected warm temperatures failed to arrive. Most people remained optimistic, waiting for the summer that was “just around the corner.” They waited in vain. During the first week of June, ten inches of snow fell on New England. Throughout the month, temperatures rarely rose above the 30s. Many farmers replanted crops several times, only to see them stunted or destroyed by sleet, hail, and icy winds. July and August brought little improvement. During most days the temperature stayed in the 40s. Farmers’ diaries document the farmers’ daily struggles with near-freezing temperatures, failing crops, and dying farm animals. The few crops that managed to survive were killed by frost in mid-September. Winter came early in New England and was unusually severe. Even the South was affected; on July 4, the high temperature for Savannah, Georgia, was only 46 degrees Fahrenheit!
Some religious leaders warned their congregations that the unusual weather meant that the end of the world was drawing near. Other leaders attributed the cool weather to unusual sunspot activity. The proliferation of the newly invented lightning rod was also blamed as some people believed that lightning rods had interrupted the natural temperature balance of Earth, causing the cooler temperatures.
It was not until October that the first plausible explanation for “The Year without a Summer” was suggested. Friedrich Bessel, a German astronomer, reported seeing thick clouds of dust in the upper atmosphere. He theorized that these dust particles screened portions of Earth from the warming rays of the sun. It was discovered that in April 1815, Mount Tambora, an Indonesian volcano, had erupted with such force that it had sent an estimated 100 cubic miles of fine dust into the atmosphere. Witnesses to the eruption reported that the sky remained dark for two days. The dust then rose high into the stratosphere, where it encircled the world for several years to come.
Skeptics in 1816 doubted that a faraway volcano could steal their summer. However, most present-day researchers believe Bessel’s explanation to be generally correct, demonstrating the global nature of weather. The dust in the atmosphere eventually settled, and the spring of 1817 was back to normal.
Question
The author includes the details in paragraph 4 about the eruption of Mount Tambora in order to
- Asuggest that the aftermath of the eruption still affects the environment today.
- Bhighlight the severe impact that the eruption had on the atmosphere.
- Cprovide a description of what happens during a volcanic eruption.
- Demphasize how differently people perceive natural events in various parts of the world.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The answer is (B)
The question asks why the details about the eruption of Mount Tambora are included in the passage. The details in paragraph 4 about the eruption highlight the severity of the eruption and how it clouded the atmosphere and eventually encircled the world, making Option B the correct answer.
Option A is incorrect because the passage does not support the idea that the effects are still present today.
Option C is incorrect because the details may include information about what happens during an eruption, but the author is specifically describing the event at Mount Tambora as the inception of weather issues all over the world.
Option D is incorrect because, while it is possible that people perceive natural events in various parts of the world differently, the specific details about the force and magnitude of the eruption do not emphasize this idea.
Question analysis
This author's purpose question asks why “The Year without a Summer” includes details about the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia. Students must work out the job those details do in the passage's larger explanation, which takes more than noticing what they describe.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Explaining why an author includes certain details is core grade 7 work. The paragraph is short and factual, and its purpose follows from its place in the passage, so the demand is typical for grade 7.
- 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
- How, not what moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 9, 469 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 62 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
The details are vivid, a blast, 100 cubic miles of dust, two days of darkness, and a student can easily answer what they show rather than why they are there. Their job is to make Bessel's dust theory believable by showing how much material reached the atmosphere and how far it spread. The passage's own ending, with the dust settling and spring of 1817 back to normal, rules out any lasting effect.
How, not what moderate Working it out
The stem asks why the author includes the eruption details, so students must tie the force, the 100 cubic miles of dust and the darkened sky to the cold summer they explain. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Strategy: Reread paragraph 4 and ask how the eruption details connect to the cold summer the passage is explaining; the purpose must serve that connection.
Traps
- Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
The wrong answers, classified
A Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Stretches dust that “encircled the world for several years” into effects still felt today, though the passage says the dust settled and spring of 1817 was normal.
C Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Notes what the details are, a description of an eruption, rather than why they are there, to show how the dust could chill summers worldwide.
D Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Draws on the skeptics in paragraph 5, but the eruption details stress the event's force and reach, not how people in different places perceived it.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks about the author’s purpose: why the author put certain details in. Don’t just say what the details are. Ask what job they do.
Find the details in paragraph 4
Mount Tambora “had erupted with such force that it had sent an estimated 100 cubic miles of fine dust into the atmosphere.” Witnesses said “the sky remained dark for two days.” The dust “encircled the world for several years to come.”
Work out their job
The atmosphere is the layer of air around Earth. These details show how huge the eruption was. A hundred cubic miles of dust is enough to block sunlight around the whole world.
That makes Bessel’s idea easy to believe. Dust from far away really could steal a summer in New England.
Check each choice
- A The dust settled, and “the spring of 1817 was back to normal.” So the effects did not last until today.
- B fits. The details show how hard the eruption hit the atmosphere.
- C They describe one eruption to explain the cold. They don’t teach how all eruptions work.
- D The details are about the eruption’s force, not how people see events.
Choose the answer
The details show the eruption’s severe impact on the atmosphere. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest trap. The details do describe an eruption. But C tells what the details are, not why they are there. The author is not teaching how volcanoes work. The details show how much dust reached the sky, which explains the cold summer. That is B.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “The Year without a Summer” as printed (page 76)
