PRAXIS PreProfessional Skills Test Set 2

Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth-
century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted
on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates.
Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Webster's Duchess of Malfi, who defined
her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeare's Desdemona, who disobeyed her father.

Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of
disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic
heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerk's Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not
criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griselda's cause against Walter's oppression. Thus,
efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walter's persecutions tend to turn Chaucer's fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on
reader's sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Webster's Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their
children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely
those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the
resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively joins forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her
brothers.
Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a
court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favor of the innocent and injured parties. For, to
paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common
sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be
judged.
The author's paraphrase of a statement by Samuel Johnson serves which of the following functions in the passage?

Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth-
century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted
on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates.
Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Webster's Duchess of Malfi, who defined
her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeare's Desdemona, who disobeyed her father.
Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of

disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic
heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerk's Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not
criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griselda's cause against Walter's oppression. Thus,
efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walter's persecutions tend to turn Chaucer's fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on
reader's sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Webster's Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their
children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely
those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the
resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively joins forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her
brothers.
Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a
court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favor of the innocent and injured parties. For, to
paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common
sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be
judged.
The primary purpose of the passage is to

Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth-
century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted
on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates.
Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Webster's Duchess of Malfi, who defined
her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeare's Desdemona, who disobeyed her father.
Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of
disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic
heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerk's Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not

criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griselda's cause against Walter's oppression. Thus,
efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walter's persecutions tend to turn Chaucer's fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on
reader's sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Webster's Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their
children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely
those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the
resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her
brothers.
Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a
court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favor of the innocent and injured parties. For, to
paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common
sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be
judged.
The author sets off the word "Reform" with quotation marks In order to

Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth-
century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted
on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates.
Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Webster's Duchess of Malfi, who defined
her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeare's Desdemona, who disobeyed her father.
Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of
disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic
heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerk's Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not
criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griselda's cause against Walter's oppression. Thus,
efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walter's persecutions tend to turn Chaucer's fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on

reader's sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Webster's Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their
children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely
those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the
resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her
brothers.
Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a
court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favor of the innocent and injured parties. For, to
paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common
sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be
judged.
It can be interred from the passage (hat the author most probably thinks that giving the disenfranchised" 'a piece of action" Is

Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth-
century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted
on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates.
Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Webster's Duchess of Malfi, who defined
her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeare's Desdemona, who disobeyed her father.
Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of
disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic
heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerk's Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not
criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griselda's cause against Walter's oppression. Thus,
efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walter's persecutions tend to turn Chaucer's fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on
reader's sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Webster's Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their
children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely

those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the
resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her
brothers.
Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a
court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favor of the innocent and injured parties. For, to
paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common
sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be
judged.
It can be interred from the passage that Woodrow Wilson's idea's about the economic market

The fossil remains of the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, have intrigued paleontologists for more than two centuries. How such large creatures, which
weighed in some cases as much as a piloted hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly what these
creatures were-reptiles or birds- are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls, pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their
wings suggests that they did not evolve into the class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like membrane. The
other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, in birds the second finger is the principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the
pterosaur walked or remained stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape along side of the animal's
body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject
to aerodynamic constraints. Both the pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds, however, these bones
are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded

because flying implies a high internal temperature. Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the body to
reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced
that his reasoning was correct.
Efforts to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched themselves by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or
even by rising into light winds from the crests of waves. Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet resembled a
bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The second hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not
have landed in trees without damaging their wings. The birds call for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such waves however, might have been
too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
According to the passage, the skeleton of a pterosaur can be distinguished from that of a bird by the

The fossil remains of the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, have intrigued paleontologists for more than two centuries. How such large creatures, which
weighed in some cases as much as a piloted hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly what these
creatures were-reptiles or birds- are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls, pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their
wings suggests that they did not evolve into the class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like membrane. The
other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, in birds the second finger is the principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the
pterosaur walked or remained stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape along side of the animal's
body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject
to aerodynamic constraints. Both the pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds, however, these bones
are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded

because flying implies a high internal temperature. Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the body to
reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced
that his reasoning was correct.
Efforts to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched themselves by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or
even by rising into light winds from the crests of waves. Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet resembled a
bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The second hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not
have landed in trees without damaging their wings. The birds call for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such waves however, might have been
too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
The ides attributed to T.H. Huxley in the passage suggest that he would most likely agree with which of the following statements?

The fossil remains of the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, have intrigued paleontologists for more than two centuries. How such large creatures, which
weighed in some cases as much as a piloted hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly what these
creatures were-reptiles or birds- are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls, pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their
wings suggests that they did not evolve into the class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like membrane. The
other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, in birds the second finger is the principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the
pterosaur walked or remained stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape along side of the animal's
body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject
to aerodynamic constraints. Both the pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds, however, these bones
are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded

because flying implies a high internal temperature. Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the body to
reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced
that his reasoning was correct.
Efforts to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched themselves by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or
even by rising into light winds from the crests of waves. Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet resembled a
bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The second hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not
have landed in trees without damaging their wings. The birds call for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such waves however, might have been
too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
The author contrasts the 1930's with the present in order to show that

The fossil remains of the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, have intrigued paleontologists for more than two centuries. How such large creatures, which
weighed in some cases as much as a piloted hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly what these
creatures were-reptiles or birds- are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls, pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their
wings suggests that they did not evolve into the class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like membrane. The
other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, in birds the second finger is the principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the
pterosaur walked or remained stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape along side of the animal's
body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject
to aerodynamic constraints. Both the pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds, however, these bones
are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded

because flying implies a high internal temperature. Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the body to
reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced
that his reasoning was correct.
Efforts to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched themselves by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or
even by rising into light winds from the crests of waves. Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet resembled a
bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The second hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not
have landed in trees without damaging their wings. The birds call for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such waves however, might have been
too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following is characteristic of the pterosaurs?

The fossil remains of the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, have intrigued paleontologists for more than two centuries. How such large creatures, which
weighed in some cases as much as a piloted hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly what these
creatures were-reptiles or birds- are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls, pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their
wings suggests that they did not evolve into the class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like membrane. The
other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, in birds the second finger is the principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the
pterosaur walked or remained stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape along side of the animal's
body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject
to aerodynamic constraints. Both the pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds, however, these bones
are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded

because flying implies a high internal temperature. Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the body to
reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced
that his reasoning was correct.
Efforts to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched themselves by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or
even by rising into light winds from the crests of waves. Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet resembled a
bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The second hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not
have landed in trees without damaging their wings. The birds call for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such waves however, might have been
too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
It can be interred from the passage that some scientists believe that pterosaurs.